Talk:Trump Tower meeting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Needs to be kept

Deleting this beachhead event would be remiss.--Wikipietime (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Campaign—Russian meeting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect target?

I am presuming the AfD will be closed as "Merge". If you feel otherwise, please discuss that on the AfD, not here.

There are two obvious redirect options: Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election and Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Which one should this article redirect to? Power~enwiki (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Article needs a timeline

A timeline of key events to put this into context would be really helpful.Casprings (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Restored timeline from history. The chronology of all this can be hard for a new reader to keep straight. Darmokand (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Does it really need a timeline? The meeting accured on one day. There was background that is covered there, and there is the set up of meeting which is covered in background as well along with the email section. This article is about the meeting itself, so other then that and the reveal nothing else is needs to be speculated to be related to this article. The majority of the current timeline isn't relevant. Manafont trying to get the job, him being hired as campaign manager how is that relevant to this meeting? The DNC hack/Crowdstrike and Wikileaks has no sourced connection to this meeting at all. If you break it down to the stuff that should be included in the timeline it would account to this:

2016

• June 3: Donald Trump Jr. receives an e-mail from Rob Goldstone....
• June 9: Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort meet with an attorney...

2017

• July 9-10: The New York Times reports about meeting and details they have received...
• July 11: Trump Jr. tweets his emails about the Veselnitskaya meeting...

Everything else belongs in 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, along with biography page of Paul Manafort WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

At least eight?

The "participants" section says "At least eight individuals participated in the Trump Tower meeting of June 9, 2016." Then it names five. There needs to be some explanation of who or what the other "at least three" people were, or how we know they were there. The lede also says eight, without explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Great observation. Added the statement that "only five of the individuals have been publicly named" for clarity. Darmokand (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert Goldstone is sixth and has been named.ref name=CNN-0714 A translator and a representative of the Russian family(Agalarov) who set up meeting are the two unnamed. I remembering reading an article that I believe said representative of Agalarov family, but the cited the same CNN article which doesn't actually specify the name of family. I didn't add Goldstone to participant section cause I'm not sure where to put him. A new section by himself title associates of campaign, since he isn't a senior member, and the other two will most likely being going under Russian. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment - Anatoli Samochornov has been named by CBS news and Huffington Post. CBS stating he was at the meeting, Huffington saying it is possible he was. Samochornov gave no comment stating non-disclosures. NYT contributor Ken Vogel stated on MSNBC that Samochornov was there, and Samochornov mother-in-law told The Daily Beast that he was there. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Russian family's representative

We have gone back and forth between representative of "Russian family who asked Goldstone to set up meeting", and "representative of the Agalarovs". I see now it is back to saying the Agalarov's name specifically. The issue I have with that is CNN didn't name them specifically in their reporting [1]. The Hill says the familiy's name specifically[2] but they source it back to that same CNN article, which doesn't verify what is said. The Hill and us can only infer that from the other information we know(emails), and the statement from the Agalarovs says the emails aren't accurate with the origination of the meeting. Either CNN was told by their source a representative of the family who asked to set up meeting, or they didn't feel confident enough to name them directly. CNN doesn't even name or mention Agalarov's directly in that article, and its doubtful they expect anyone reading just that article to infer information that isn't there. I also notice that the Agalarov's representative has made it's way into lead now as well. I probably will change both instance later today after some discussion. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that too and plead guilty to editing back and forth between "the family" and "the Agalarovs"; tricky when a source contradicts another. Until clearer sources emerge, I would leave out this statement completely, at the three places it is repeated. It's fine to leave some mystery for the 8th conspirator. — JFG ^talk 12:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't leave it out, I would just leave out naming them until we get more detail/confirmation particularly who it was exactly. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Goldstone's own statement submitted July 10 says "I was asked by my client in Moscow — Emin Agalarov — to help facilitate a meeting between a Russian attorney and Donald Trump Jr. The lawyer had apparently stated she had some information regarding illegal campaign contributions to the DNC, which she believed Mr. Trump Jr. might find important." That is found in numerous reliable sources. Softlavender (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There involvement as stated by Goldstone I'm not doubting, buy Agalatov says the origin of meeting that Goldstone has given is not accurate. The issue isn't mentioning them in the article, it is saying they had a representative at meeting when that is not what was reported by CNN. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I now feel this issue I brought up is less relevant as a result of today's article[3] that Casprings posted below, we have CNN describing as The eighth person has been described by sources familiar with the circumstances as an employee and US representative of the Agalarovs.. At the moment I think the only information that should be added is he is represented by Scott Balber, who also represents the Agalarovs(the latter part already mentioned). WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• WP Names him now. Also per Casprings below. If no one else does, I will add info into article after I eat lunch. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Which is why I worded it as shown by this diff which was hastily removed: "The alleged connection to Agalarov’s is based in part on his Crocus Group real estate holdings which include large shopping centers around Moscow, and an assumption that such work would "have brought him into contact with Mr. Katsyv — and Ms. Veselnitskaya." The news sources are feeding us bits and pieces so they can milk as much as they can out of this event. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That edit appears to be separate to this person we are talking about (Ike Kaveladze). WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Sorry for my confusion, WikiVirusC but Kaveladze was asked to attend the meeting at Trump Tower by Aras Agalarov so how is the connection different? It stated how he was connected to Veselnitskaya and why they wanted Trump Jr to meet with her but he was referred to as the unidentified attendee that was sent to represent Agalarov, no? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The edit makes no mention of the representative. Even in the part you are quoting you are mentioning connections between Veselnitskaya and Katsyv, with Agalarov. At no point do I see a reference to Kaveladze or the representative at the meeting as he was known as before today. That entire statement is how its presumed that Agalarov knows Veselnitskaya. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing

I have tagged the first paragraph with inline tags where WP:WEASEL words have been inserted, presumably to cast doubt. These words (purportedly and allegedly) are not appropriate because the basic facts are not in dispute. This editorializing should be removed.- MrX 14:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: RE: recent edits while under {{in use}}.

The initial meeting between Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was arranged by Rob Goldstone - Was there a follow-up or any other meetings? Why "initial meeting"?

^{I corrected it, thank you for bringing it up.}

Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, denies allegations that she was connected to the Russian government - She has regular contact with the Russian Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika, potentially the person Goldstone meant when he said Crown prosecutor in emails as noted in article. [4]WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

^{It is not up to us to make that judgement call. We are limited to included the facts as represented in the sources. The allegations were made - she denied them - and stating the facts using inline text attribution satisfies NPOV and BLP which is what we, as editors, are required to do.Atsme📞📧 17:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}

The WSJ article I linked is stating what she herself said in an interview. I'm not making a judgment call, this has a source. We either state she initially denied having ties, then later admitting to having regular contact with Chaika and his office, or we just say that she denies acting on behalf of Russia in that meeting. The WSJ isn't used as source in article but The Hill is cited, which tells us the same thing. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darmokand:

He further explained that in their meeting, Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya "offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary Clinton - He doesn't name or mention Veselnitskaya in the emails, which this section is describing. Indicating that she was one he was referring to is misleading as that is not stated anywhere, she hasn't been a prosecutor in over a decade, so her being described as "Crown Prosecutor" is doubtful. She is mentioned in following sentence when she was introduced in the meeting. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

^{You are correct - look at the diff. I also noticed the following statement by NPR: In reference to the “Crown prosecutor of Russia,” the New York Times reports that reference appears to be one to Yury Yakovlevich Chaika, “a Putin appointee who is known to be close to Natalia Veselnitskaya,” There's no mention of it in the article. I encourage you to correct the information you noted above as it wasn't I who added it. Atsme📞📧 17:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}

Yeah this one was directed towards Darmokand, not you. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiVirusC, hope it's ok that I interspersed my answers following your questions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's fine by me as its easily readable where it was your replies. Thanks for the responses, I will be going through article later and making my own edits. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

My recent changes

Background

• "....Natalia Veselnitskaya, was introduced at the meeting and stated that she was not a government official." -> "....Natalia Veselnitskaya, was introduced at the meeting. Veselnitskaya has stated that she was not a government official."

Guardian does not say she stated was not a government official at the meeting.

Participants

• "She has denied the allegation that she was or is connected to the Russian government." -> "She initially denied the allegation that she was or is connected to the Russian government, but later disclosed she was in regular contact with the Russian prosecutor office and with Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika."Cite The Hilland WSJ

This is where she "has connections to Russian Government" that is widely reported.

Lead

• "two of whom are alleged to be connected to the Russian government, although they deny it. " -> "two of whom are alleged to be connected to the Russian government, although one denies the connection."

see above

Any comments please feel free to ping me, or leave them here as I am watching page. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Re the lead: not just one - they have both denied a government connection. Akhmetshin [5]. She said she has never WORKED for the government, but maybe the contact can be worked into the article. And we need to add Akhmetshin's denial to "participants". --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Admitting to regularly being in contact with the Russian prosecutor office, and the Prosecutor General directly is admitting a connection. The wording either needs to state simply the facts that we have now, or reworded to indicate that after denying any connection she has admitted a connection, as I did in the bio in the participants section. This is sourced completely. Please discuss here rather than just reverting. A lot of things have been denied and later admitted in with this subject, we can't just put the denial and act like an admission didn't happen later. It's included in the body of the article, but having in the lead that she denies any connections is false. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

note: removed from lead for time being until we can figure out what is best to put. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So, your other two changes are still in the article. For the lede, how about "at least five other people including four Russians"? --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the representative for the family's nationality is, but presumably is Russian. Translator is reported to be the named Russian-American. I'm fine with not mentioning anything in that sentence, and just saying met with five other people, and describing them in following sentences. If we want to mention there alleged ties to government and denials/clarifications we could do that here or we can leave it only in body. The issue I was having mostly was that lead had they both denied it, but no mention of the prosecutor general connection in lead. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiVirusC:

• Background...I'm good with breaking up the 2 sentences but using her last name back-to-back sounds bulky. How about "She has denied being a government official." Also, we could derive from Trump Jr.'s statement, "I decided to take the meeting. The woman, as she has said publicly, was not a government official." that his revelation of her not being a government official did occur there. Matters not to me.
• Participants...the Russian prosecutor office and with Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika - we need to include why she was in contact with them per The Hill which states that she shared information with Chaika about American hedge fund manager William Browder, who pushed for the passage of the sanctions law known as the Magnitsky Act." Best to make it short and just add "with whom she shared information pertaining to the Magnitsky Act."
• the Lead - I think MelanieN covered it well. However, I wouldn't say four Russians as we do know one of those four is a Russian-American, and don't know the interpreters nationality which could be an America who speaks Russian. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As a sidebar...it's rather apparent to me in this NYTimes article why MSM is milking this story for as long as they can..."cha-ching". They were pretty proud of the activity they had received knowing it's likely to generate much needed ad revenue while it's still a hot topic. Thankful we are an encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and hopeful we can keep it that way. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Rewording to she is fine by me, I just felt the sentence was better split. In Trump Jr's statement, it really doesn't indicate that she stated that in meeting or if he found that out, he adds into middle of sentence "as she has said publicly", which was recently done by her. Mentioning the contents of her conversations with Chaika probably is best as well. The lead I also feel is kind of hard to mention nationalities when we don't know for sure some of the attendees. We talk about Veselnitskaya in more detail after that sentence, maybe a mention of Akhmetshin in first paragraph would help as well. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN - I'm of the mind that two Timeline sections is overkill. I'm not convinced we need one. The prose and emails speak to the timeline. The article was shaping up so nicely and then boom - two timelines. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think the bottom time line is unnecessary as I mentioned up here. It's one meeting, the timeline is basically the background(background/emails), the meeting(meeting/participants), and the now reporting of it(timeline of reporting/reaction), which is what the article covers in detail. I trimmed down the unnecessary stuff in the timeline, but I'm fine with it being gone again. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the timeline is pointless and fluffy. Let's toss 'er overboard! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Added in following for context of Veselnitskaya's meetings with Chaika: At a later date she disclosed that she was in regular contact with the Russian Prosecutor General's office and with Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika, in regards to sharing information she acquired in her investigation relating to the Magnitsky Act. It may need a rewording if anyone else wants to adjust. Also do we need to bit about her prominent clients in her bio still? That may be able to be cut. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiVirusC, DarthBotto - pick one or both of the timelines and delete. They are redundant to what is already in the article and we don't need a list of what's already in the prose. One section header was changed to Public revelations which makes no sense to me because it's an inappropriate title and doesn't change it from being a NYTimes timeline. I've already had my quota of deletes for a while - lots of other articles in the queue, so I am happy to collaborate with thoughtful editors like yourselves and others here on the TP. It appears to be stabilizing thanks to all of you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'd prefer there being no timeline- at least, not on this article. You know, I believe this particular article should stand, but I've been opposed to keeping about half of the Trump controversy articles that have been created over the last two months. I agree with the premise you present about not having articles that don't amount to a hill of beans. I mean, we almost had an article about Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough fighting on Twitter! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Title choice is weird and should be changed

This was not the only "Trump campaign–Russian meeting" ...

What about the multiple meetings as noted at Links between Trump associates and Russian officials that took place with Sergey Kislyak ?

This article title needs to be more specific to be about the one meeting it is about.

Sagecandor (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about June 9 Trump campaign–Russian meeting? Darmokand (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, that doesn't specify the year. Sagecandor (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump campaign–Russian meeting on June 9, 2016 or Trump campaign–Russian meeting at Trump Tower? Something like that? Darmokand (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Something like the first one, maybe. The 2nd one, again, could refer to other meetings with Sergey Kislyak. Sagecandor (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Although merger seems inevitable, I would like to recommend Trump Jr.–Veselnitskaya meeting, should the article have its own space again. I based it off of Ma–Xi meeting. Trump Jr.–Veselnitskaya meeting follows spelling convention, it highlights the two most prominent people (by media attention) of the meeting. It was Trump Jr.'s e-mails that have set off this firestorm and he is the one being targeted by committees for questioning. Questions about Veselnitskaya's position and ability to stay in this country have been of significant interest. Manafort, Kushner, and Goldstone have played a secondary role in coverage. Trump campaign–Russian meeting can serve as a WP:DAB to the various links. All other suggestions above can serve as WP:Redirects. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 01:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Trump Jr. wasn't the only member from Trump's organization that was in the meeting.Casprings (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Casprings I addressed that and would be happy to elaborate if you want me to. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 22:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Agree the title should be changed. In case this article is kept in the below discussion I would suggest something like "June 2016 Trump Tower meeting" or "Veselnitskaya meeting". "Trump campaign-Russian meeting" sounds strange, to say the least. Besides, it wasn't the whole campaign staff as the current title suggests and other campaign members met or had contacts with Russians, so it should probably be more specific. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• I would just request before any move that we have a move request.Casprings (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Rename to "Trump campaign–Russian meeting on June 9, 2016"?

As we continue to engage in the Merge discussion below, would anyone object to a temporary retitle adding the specific date? Darmokand (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless we have another meeting in another article I don't see the reason to do so. The current name itself might be up for debate, but I don't think if we keep current title that we need to add the date to it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No need for now, as this is the only documented meeting at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Not the only meeting, what about the multiple meetings with Sergey Kislyak ??? Sagecandor (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Article Content

Public revelation section

I undid removal of this section (diff), as it pretty much part of the story -- i.e. how the email chain was published by Donald Trump Jr, etc. This section also serves as a necessary connector between the account of the meeting and "Reactions" section that follows. Open to discussing this further. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That material is an important part of the article.- MrX 00:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Attendees bios

How much detail do we want to include into this article. Does every attendee need to have a mini-bio of who they are and their former clients, former associates ect.? Since the main players all now have a wikipedia article, shouldn't we just link to them and simply mention their basic background that is relevant in regards to this meeting? WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The current level of detail (a couple of sentences, as in this version) seems appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed them a bit further, keeping only the slice of their background which is relevant to this meeting; each person has their own article for details. — JFG ^talk 06:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

With the reactions, do we need the list every reaction/op-ed from every conservative journalist, liberal journalist, conservative&liberal magazine/newspaper, law professor, University, former government officials etc.? Cause eventually its going to be a lot. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't. The section already seems a bit long, as in this version. It's perhaps too soon to discuss trimming this section, but I would suggest adding any new content judiciously. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We obviously need to limit the reactions section. I think reactions by that legislators and scholars are noteworthy. Reactions by journalists and commentators are less noteworthy.- MrX 00:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I approve the merciless trimming of opinion pieces from both sides, thanks MrX for wielding the axe. — JFG ^talk 06:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

When editors are working to clean-up this article during a pending discussion to merge, it is highly disruptive for editors who have not taken part in our recent discussions on the TP to revert the work we're doing in an effort to make the article stable for main space. I removed the two lists that I discussed above with WikiVirusC and DarthBotto = 3 active editors who are in agreement. Removal of redundant content (one of which has its own main article) and the other which is nothing more than a promo piece for the NYTimes complete with an image of the NYTimes building. Softlavender reverted the sections I removed with no valid justification in the edit summary except that consensus was needed. Excuse me, but removing redundancies should not require an RfC, and we already had consensus among 3 of the active editors who have been working to clean-up this article. I consider the revert highly disruptive, especially by a seasoned editor. Removals and clean-up by other editors have not required "consensus" as she stated in the edit summary. I maintain my position that the two timelines are unnecessary and redundant for the reasons I mentioned above. MelanieN, my removal of those two unnecessary sections was inline with what other editors participating in the clean-up have been doing, and since you have been collaborating with us in a positive manner your input as well will be greatly appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

pinging DarthBotto again, as I screwed up first ping. 12:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I can (weakly) support the removal of the timeline but not the Pulic revelations section, which contains highly-informative content. It's not disruptive to revert edits that remove important content. The article is in pretty good shape right now, and is unlikely to be merged. I suggest getting firm consensus before removing large amounts of material.- MrX 12:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline at bottom should go in my opinion. There was a discussion started up here about adding one in, it was a request for a timeline by Casprings, no one responded on talk page and selective information from Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was copied pasted into article. Later it was removed completely as being unnecessary. Since no one responded on talk page to the request, it still looked like an active request for a timeline after all the went down, and a few days later it was added back in by Darmokand. I felt it was completely unneeded, and responded saying so. No one replied, so I adjusted the content to just the relevant information and have agreed on talk page about its removal.

In regards to the Public Revelations section, I feel its fine being in the article as it is how knowledge of the meeting got out with the NYT being involved. The title of section could be changed possibility, maybe New York Times reporting or Reporting of meeting, or maybe something else, idk. I'm not really that against the current title. Either way, I do agree the image of the NYT building is not needed at all. The Emails between Goldstone and Donald Trump Jr. section probably could be merged into the reporting section. We don't necessarily need a section with just partial quotes from selective emails, when we have the full email chain image there, and the quotes/contents are mentioned elsewhere. I have made a proposal below of changed I'd like to see happen. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The NYTimes is not the only source that has been cited and I see no reason to promote their agenda. The entire section is noncompliant with core content policy including WP:NPOV. It is WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTIONAL and redundant. There is nothing in that timeline that isn't already in the article. If editors cannot establish a timeline through sections and prose, then it may be a case of WP:CIR. WP:V requires multiple 3rd party sources, and if that policy requirement isn't met, the information doesn't belong in the article. Another thought - not everything actually belongs in an article, and a timeline - even if it met PAGs - is overkill. It needs to go which I've stated in the Proposal following this section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

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.

---

I (WikiVirusC) propose we:

1. Remove the Timeline of events section completely.  Done
2. Remove the emails section, and move the basic details in the the Public Revelations section. Note:Not to remove the emails completely, but the merge that subsection elsewhere(Background or Public Revelations).  Done
3. Remove NYT image and replace it with the email chain image.  Done
4. Discuss naming of Public Revelations section. YPartially implemented: Name has been changed, but it's still disputed, more discussion may be needed separately.

• Support - #1, #2 & #3 as proposer. #4 I am fine with current name. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1,3, and 4; Oppose 2 - "Public revelations" could be moved to a subsection under "Background", and renamed "New York Times reporting", or something similar.- MrX 13:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• I agree the "timeline" should go. It looks to me that it contains nothing not already in the text. As for the rest of the article, I think the organization is confusing and could be made more straightforward. For example: merge the "Emails" into the "Background" section, calling it something like "Leadup to the meeting". Then "Participants". Then "Meeting", including any followup statements from the participants describing what happened. Then "Public revelations", except I agree that is not a great title; how about just "Reporting"? Finally "Reactions". --MelanieN (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, that's a better overall organization than what I proposed.- MrX 16:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• My input follows:

1. Agree to removal of the timeline of events.
2. Disagree - the complete series of emails belongs in this article
3. Agree-Disagree as follows: Agree with the removal of the NYT image AND the section that promotes ONLY the NYTimes timeline. It is blatantly noncompliant with WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOV. There are numerous other RS that have been cited and are probably far more reliable because they don't have near the bias as does the NYTimes against this President.
4. Disagree - remove that section altogether - it's redundant and serves no useful purpose. In fact, it appears to be more of an attempt to support the NYTimes conspiracy theory which even sports the headline Conspiracy or Coincidence? A Timeline Open to Interpretation, and it is circulating to other MSM sites, all of which provide their own interpretation, of course. (1) Our readers are smart enough to not need a redundant section to figure out how the events unfolded, and (2) WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX or promoter of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories, and until the allegations are proven, that's what they represent. We can state the claims/allegations and the rebuttals using inline text attribution, but that timeline is unnecessary. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to email, I just meant does it warrant having its own subsection. The emails definitely need to be in the article. They are already mentioned and quoted in the Background section, and in the also the same inside the Revelation section, and the image with full emails is included as well. The parts that aren't mentioned in Background can be merged in as MelanieN suggested, or into the Revelation section.

In regards to NYT section, no matter how we write this article the NYT will have to be mentioned. The story wasn't broken by everyone, the NYT put the information out there. They also would be mentioned again when they told Trump Jr they were going to release the full emails, he released the emails on his own. If we remove the NYT, it seems like he released them after the story came out because he wanted to be transparent, rather than afterNYT told him they were going to publish them. The section could be fixed to have less focus on the NYT, seeing as after they reported it, MSNBC, CNN, AP, and The Washington Times all contributed in discovering and revealing the participants of the meeting. I would need to go back in page history to see when it was written, but it may focus on NYT if it was written early on before others started gathering their own information. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiVirusC - the NYTimes timeline is noncompliant with NPOV and it's redundant. It has to go. I'm not sure why you think WP is required to cite the NYTimes simply because they broke the news. In fact, WP:V states "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text attribution, and keep in mind that while the NYTimes may have been first to publish the breaking news, other 3rd party sources published it, and if they got the info from the NYTimes, they state such in their articles so it's not our job to promote the NYTimes. See NBC news which credits the AP; also see how The Hill handled it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have said we should credit the other agencies for the facts they provided and it it into the said section. NBC credits AP for identifying Akhmetshin, that should be added and credited to the AP as part of the reporting section. Also we aren't producing a NYT timeline, its not even a timeline, its simply the reporting. We aren't focusing on the NYT we are focusing on the reporting. Removing who it was reported by and simply stating what was reported, especially when there are different versions of the stories out there, simply makes things that are disputed by those invovled seem as facts. NYT says this happened, Veselnitskaya says that happened, Akhmetshin says that happened, Trump Jr. says something else.{citations} The alternative is "This happened", the others disputed.{citations} WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1, 3 and 4, oppose 2. Timeline is just a rehash of what the prose already says. Emails give precise context. New York Times and Trump Tower pictures are particularly useless filler. For #4, I would call this section "Disclosure" — JFG ^talk 16:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG, while I agree with some of the edits you've made, what gives you special permission to revert and make major changes when my changes were reverted with the message that there was no consensus? Where can I get such a pass? Perhaps I missed the consensus proposal for your edits. Are they on this TP? MelanieN, I thought this proposal was representative of the fact that no major changes should be made without consensus first? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Just being "bold, but not reckless", as the top-of-page notice advises. There have been so many of those notices, it's hard to keep track; thankfully, the "don't edit without consensus or else!" provision-that-keeps-on-giving has been rescinded. People who disagree with my edits are free to revert. — JFG ^talk 17:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like what you did, JFG. I'm not as bold, which is probably a bleed-over characteristic of my work as a GA/FA reviewer. It occasionally overshadows my work as an editor as it relates to BRD. I much prefer collaboration with a team whose members focus on MOS, structure, keeping things in context & properly cited, etc. like what you, MelanieN, and a few others have demonstrated (less the bold 😆). I do want to point out another example of why I object to a timeline that cites "developing news": The NYTimes retracted one of their timelines (my bold): "Correction: July 12, 2017 Because of an editing error, a picture caption with an earlier version of this article misstated the timing of a statement from President Vladimir V. Putin’s spokesman. The spokesman said on Monday, not on Tuesday, that Mr. Putin had never heard of Natalia Veselnitskaya." Who is checking to see if that error may have affected the timeline in this article? I still believe it's noncompliant with policy to include only The NYTimes timeline. For what reason is it included? The article prose and emails provide all the necessary information without narrowing it down to an unstable, useless timeline. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Note: There is so far unanimous consensus to remove the timeline, so I just nuked it. — JFG ^talk 17:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• I'm willing to undertake a merger of the "background" and "emails" sections into a "Leadup to the meeting" section (title open to discussion), if people are OK with that. There is a lot of duplication between them anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You have my support, MelanieN. My "crystal ball" tells me this article is probably going to wind-up merged so it probably should be whittled down to a minimum. Just curious... was this WaPo article cited in the campaign-meeting article? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • An opinion post by a lobbyist? [6] I assume not; why would it be? --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Go for it, MelanieN, that will cut some more redundancies. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done New issue: I also think there is a lot of overlap between the "purpose" and "disclosure" sections. IMO the material about what Trump Jr. said the meeting was about should go in the "purpose" section, not be mixed in among the "disclosures". And the explanation from the lobbyist - what Veselnitskaya said, and the fact that she left a document - is duplicated in both sections. Will it be OK with people if I move people's description of the meeting out of "disclosure" into "purpose"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Have at it. — JFG ^talk 01:16, 18 July 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.

Recent edits

The edits by user User:Atsme: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_campaign–Russian_meeting&type=revision&diff=790861741&oldid=790847569 inserted un-needed weasel words and doubt on the subject. In my view, they reveal a POV and should be mostly reverted.1. We can speak in wikipedia's voice on most of these facts, as they are not in dispute. 2. This also goes for many of the weasel words. We know what the emails said and the key facts.Casprings (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme can you self revert and come and discuss some of these changes?Casprings (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly recommend reviewing MOS:ACCUSED as it clearly states although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others. I have been providing detailed and attributed explanations that are supported by inline text attributions cited to the sources. Furthermore, WP:BLP also comes into play here, and when allegations are stated as facts in WP voice, you are violating policy. Correcting those violations with acceptable terminology is not a violation of policy, rather it is compliance. This article is about an ongoing investigation with accusations against BLPs that have been denied by the accused and are being disproven daily. What is happening now is clearly justification for MERGING as the article is clearly not suitable for article mainspace. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Being connected to the Russian government is not a crime nor wrongdoing. Being a representative of a Russian family is not a crime or wrongdoing. "Alleged" does not mean "unconfirmed", "unverified", or simply "reported". It's very sloppy to slap "alleged" all over the article, when better adjectives (or none) are more accurate and more neutral. It looks like "alleged" is being used here as an expression of doubt by editors who are letting their personal views inappropriately color their edits.- MrX 17:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX I have no argument with accurate and neutral - that is what I'm trying to achieve here - however, I do object to stating allegations as fact in Wiki voice, so we must be careful how questionable statements and allegations are presented. Per PAGs, it's always better to use inline text attribution and let the source speak to the allegation, not WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding the word 'alleged' is not the same as giving attribution. Widely-reported facts can be reflected in articles as facts. All we have to do is adhere to what secondary sources say, and not try to add our own interpretations. It's not difficult—just don't add extra words. - MrX 17:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Understood, MrX but please read the policies I cited which may help clear up any confusion over my choice of words and why I insist on adhering to our core content policies. Another consideration you may or may not have considered is the fact that some of the people named in article may very well be under criminal investigation per this US News article. I prefer to not throw caution to the wind and state anything in WP voice as fact unless it passes the scrutiny of WP:V and does not infringe upon WP:BLP which requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (OR) which appears to have been overlooked in some instances. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) IMO we don't need to clutter up this article with "alleged" and similar evasions. The facts of the matter are well established. And I urge you to actually read MOS:ACCUSED, which advises AGAINST the use of hedging or "doubt" words, except in the case of accusations toward a person. At this point no one is being accused of any crime; no individual is involved in the contested statements. The requirement for "alleged" does not come into play with the actions of a government or a campaign or other non-human entities; it's for BLPs. Leave out the hedging; the interference by the Russians in the U.S. election is as well established as such things ever are. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with the others. The basic facts here are well established. If there are facts that are in dispute, lets lay it out what is in dispute, but there is no reason for a use of weasel words, etc.Casprings (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

My issue is not with "established facts" - it's with editorial opinion, taking things out of context and improperly stating what has been alleged and what actually is a proven fact. That's why I support a 7-day waiting period before busting on the scene with breaking news, which actually is noncompliant with WP:NOT. This is a developing story, and there are lots of allegations being tossed around. The latter is why I never would have approved the article going into mainstream, and here we are today - good editors arguing over allegations based on biased sources as proven by the Harvard report, and others. As long as we all collaborate based on what the articles actually state, and stop editorializing and promoting conspiracy theories in an attempt to make this debacle into something it's not (which probably would have failed WP:N upon submission were it not for MSM's frenzy), we'll be just fine.^{Atsme📞📧} 17:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, let's talk about the specific edits in question; we are getting nowhere talking in generalities. And throwing around accusations of "conspiracy theories" and "editorializing" is unhelpful to say the least; please stop that. Looking at specific edits, I actually agree with "two of whom are alleged to be" connected to the Russian government, because both of the individuals have denied it. I think the current wording "was arranged by Rob Goldstone which he said was on behalf of Emin Agalarov" is OK since it cites the source without hinting that we don't believe him. Are there other places where Atsme thinks we need to include hedge words? --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with all those denials and comments being put into the lede (the current final paragraph of the lede as recently added by Atsme). That is material for the text, not the lede. I am going to move those three sentences to appropriate locations in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We write:

"On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, who was then chairman of the presidential campaign, and Jared Kushner met at Trump Tower in a prearranged meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, Rob Goldstone, a translator for Veselnitskaya, and one other unidentified person alleged to be "a representative of the Russian family who had asked Goldstone to set up the meeting.""

Source writes:

"A source familiar with the circumstances told CNN there were at least two other people in the room as well, a translator and a representative of the Russian family who had asked Goldstone to set up the meeting."
— [7]

Adding the word alleged is editorializing, so I will call it that. What we should instead write is:

"On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, who was then chairman of the presidential campaign, and Jared Kushner met at Trump Tower in a prearranged meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, Rob Goldstone, a translator for Veselnitskaya. According to a CNN source, an unidentified "representative of the Russian family who had asked Goldstone to set up the meeting" was also present"

Note that this mistake also appears in the lead.- MrX 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN I agree with most of the edits you've made - nice work - but I am troubled by the reverts for the following reasons: WP:LEDE states (my bold to demonstrate why I feel removal makes lede noncompliant): The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The reverts remove the NPOV portion in that all the allegations are included with nothing to balance it as required by PAGs, which creates WP:UNDUE. Readers often don't read past the lead, so please self-revert in order to maintain compliance with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS.

One final thought - you MrX^{20:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)} said "adding the word alleged is editorializing - I disagree, and so does WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WORD. Allegations tell the reader the claims are not yet substantiated, as is the case for this article. We really do need to stick with policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That material - quotes or comments from people involved - belongs in the article text, not the lede. The lede is for summarizing what is in the article. In most articles details are not included and references are not used, because those things are supposed to go in the text. In this article, as in many controversial articles, that guideline isn't being followed and there are references in the lede. However, the detailed rebuttals you added are still not suitable for the lede. Note that I didn't "revert" them, I just moved them to elsewhere in the article. I will try to think of a short, unreferenced way to indicate in the lede that some of the parties are denying what was alleged. (Done.)

I wasn't the one who said "alleged" was editorializing, and I did not add that word to the "meeting at Trump Tower" section; in fact I didn't notice it. I do agree with MrX's proposed rewriting of that sentence, above. In the lede it already says that the unidentified person "is believed to be a representative" and I think that is a good way to put it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Update:I have added MrX's rewrite to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

^{My apologies, MelanieN - I corrected it (hopefully correctly)Atsme📞📧} 20:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I realize I'm late here in this regard, but Casprings needs to remember that addressing other editors in headings is extremely inappropriate, per WP:TALKNEW. It would be best to hat/close this TP section. DN (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for a scholar's analysis

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.

---

The following was removed with a rather uncivil edit summary of "WTF??" I'm seeking consensus for restoring it:

Columbia University law professor Philip Bobbitt wrote that "Resignation, as remote as it seems right now, might well be a choice the President would make to save his children from prison, and himself from future prosecution."

References

Philip Bobbitt's views are noteworthy and provide a meaningful perspective of this subject.- MrX 17:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Totally undue. I mean, wtf? A sitting President should resign because his son had a meeting about opposition research during his campaign??? — JFG ^talk 17:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  Unlike other reactions, this one is referenced to two sources so not WP:UNDUE. Also, it doesn't say Trump should resign. It simply states that it's a possibility to keep Jr. out of prison. Do you refute that Bobbitt's view is noteworthy?- MrX 17:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As an aside to the noteworthiness of Philip Bobbitt, his article seems to be mostly unreferenced. So it's hard to tell from there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This may be helpful: Philip Bobbitt on Google Scholar.- MrX 17:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: You appear to be unaware of the seriousness of the situation. The president's son and son-in-law may very well have broken election law by soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals. So I urge you to familiarize yourself with the situation as widely reported by the media and then reconsider your position. All the best. Lklundin (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Who is saying he solicited campaign contributions? PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

In Trump Jr.'s own words "I love it" may very well constitute solicitation of a "thing of value" as a campaign contribution from a foreign national, as reported by media citing a US election-law scholar. But naturally, we will only know if we get to a point where the courts make their verdict on the matter. And Kushner would have to convince said courts that he did not read even the subject line of emails he received from his brother-in-law in preparation for the meeting he attended. Until we get to that point the media's reporting of scholarly views on the matter is highly relevant for perspective. Lklundin (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Lklundin, you might want to read this, and avoid stating anything in WP voice that suggests guilt based on speculation, propaganda and/or opinion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I don't understand why you keep pointing to an op-ed piece by a lobbyist[8] as something we should consider as having serious significance. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - speculation, irrelevant and noncompliant with BLP, NPOV and PUBLICFIGURE and NOFORTUNETELLERS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  It is speculation, but how on earth is it non-compliant with BLP?- MrX 17:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV) - There is nothing neutral about suggesting Trump Jr. has done anything to warrant going to prison. Irrespective of common sense and the law, it's speculation based on sensationalized propaganda and allegations (which have increased earnings for the NYTimes to the point they're bragging about it.) Also see WP:BLPCRIME.
• Verifiability (V)**Most of the allegations that have been made are not yet confirmed, and several of the sources are anonymous - how does that comply with V?
• No original research (NOR) - N/A ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Huh? Now I'm really lost in that tangle of irrelevant policies and random what nots. All I asked was how a direct quote from a respected scholar, cited by third party sources, violates WP:BLP.- MrX 19:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX surely you've read WP:BLPCRIME. If we presume he's innocent according to BLP policy, no crime was committed; therefore, the Prof's claim is irrelevant to WP, and to include it would be noncompliant with BLP. No crime has been committed. Hope that helps. If it turns out later that a crime was committed, that would be another fun article for you to edit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think reactions should be limited to government officials(White House/Congress along with the Kremlin) and the people directly involved with meeting. Any op-eds or opinion pieces of any kind done by journalists/scholar/lawyers at this point are all going to be reactionary to the story no matter how qualified, what previous positions they held, or how un-biased the writer may be. They all are going to be based simply on what was known at the time. I am of the mind for these cases, outside of the reporting of the meeting itself, nothing done while the story is still active/developing should be included. Wait for analysis that happens a month afterwards maybe longer. So I don't think Bobbitt's piece should be in article, nor Charles Krauthammer's, or Norman L. Eisen/Richard W. Painter's piece. They wrote something on the subject? Fine put it in their biography page. There is going to be a lot of things written about this meeting, no need to reward the ones first to the gun here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  WikiVirusC I assume you also oppose commentary from Mark Levin and Scott Balber?- MrX 18:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  Levin yes, I missed his separate comment after Krauthammer's when I was going through the list. Balber, I don't want his general commentary or opinions, but when he is speaking on behalf or giving a statement for the Agalarovs I consider it as their reaction.

• Remove it. This is nowhere near a mainstream view; rather it's way-out-there speculation, assuming a lot of stuff that would be BLP violations to include. And in general I think we should not fill up this article (as I have seen done on some articles) with "this law professor said this" and "that commentator said that". --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  OK, I guess my big, beautiful content doesn't have consensus. Let's just go with WikiVirusC's idea or limiting reactions to involved parties and government officials.- MrX 19:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  I agree that we should not restore the deleted material, since it seems to go considerably beyond a mere analysis of the situation. Lklundin (talk) 19:14, 17 July 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.

Manafort's past clients

@MrX: You and I have done some back and forth about the past activities of Paul Manafort. I contend that his role as a lobbyist for the Party of Regions of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is relevant as background information to this article, because of the close alignment between Yanukovych and Putin, but you removed him saying: This needs a better source. Also let's not be selective about who he lobbied for. Either list the ones in the source or none at all. I agree to find a better source, but why do you think Yanukovych should only be listed if we also include assorted dictators culled from Manafort's portfolio? These shady characters certainly enhance the spy novel ambience of our article but they are decidedly off-topic. — JFG ^talk 01:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the source made a point of discussing his relationship with them. Here is a good source about the Trump/Russia meeting that details Manafort's background:

"Manafort's ties to foreign oligarchs and dictators have raised questions for decades, but his work for the Trump campaign likely has him under FBI investigation."[[9]

If we want to expand the Manafort mini bio in this article, we should include Yanukovych, but we should also at least summarize the breadth of his foreign relations work. Something paraphrasing the first 12 words of the above excerpt would accomplish that without naming names.- MrX 01:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Manafort's past is discussed elsewhere. The only thing relevant to this article is the fact that he was Trump's campaign manager at the time. --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

His activities with respect to Russia are highly relevant to this article, and sources bear that out. We don't have to write a book, but let's try to balance that with not keeping readers in the dark.- MrX 12:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Disclosure section

It's actually not a disclosure, it's a timeline. I just explained why I removed it, why it is noncompliant with NPOV and promotional in this diff. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your argument for deletion fails to persuade. The reporting is part of the story. Section is restored, but perhaps others will find the above persuasive. Darmokand (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the PAGs I cited, because if you had, you wouldn't have reverted by edit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing that section. It is very much compliant with NPOV and not the least bit promotional. It actually provides context to so that readers understand the how knowledge of the emails unfolded, the initial misinformation, and the subsequent "correction" by Jr.- MrX 02:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe the structure of the page is now at a happy medium, as well. The content has a lot of potential to improve, however, as this is an ongoing event. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with removing it. It contains a lot of essential information not duplicated elsewhere. Some of that information - Trump Jr.'s description of what the meetings were about - should IMO be removed from "Disclosure" and put into the "purpose" section where the other two participants' description of the purpose are. I proposed doing that in a section above. That will still leave a valuable description of how the material became public, and should be supplemented by the revelations from other sources besides the NYT. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. What "PAGs" are you talking about? It would be helpful if you would say what you mean, instead of just throwing acronyms around. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been citing PAGs that support my concerns but the arguments to keep are not convincing. What is the basis for keeping? The NYTimes is not the only source, and the improperly named section "Disclosure" is not disclosure at all. Trump Jr published the emails which was the actual public disclosure. Some of the comments I've read for keeping it read more like promotion of the NYT because they published the news first which is another aspect of what makes it a promotional piece. The info is already included in the article and the timeline is not needed. One argument WikiVirusC made was that "its fine being in the article as it is how the story got out with the NYT being involved. The title of section could be changed possibility, maybe New York Times reporting or Reporting of story, or maybe something else, idk."

1. WP:V - "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." <---As I've already provided the link above, The NYTimes has made corrections for incorrect timelines in this case.
2. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text attribution specifically lays out the following relevant examples:

When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources, without making clear that the position of Darwin is the majority view:

N Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars.

Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery:

N According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.

It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal:

N In an article published in The Lancet in 2012, researchers announced the discovery of the new tissue type.

Simple facts such as this can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution:

YBy mass, oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen and helium.

NBC news credits the AP; and The Hill credited The NYTimes. In other words, the story doesn't belong to the NYTimes. Regardless, the 3rd party sources satisfy WP:V. It still doesn't change the fact that the section is redundant and in violation of NPOV because it gives the NYTimes sole recognition.^{Atsme📞📧} 02:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Extremely important, well-cited section; no reason to delete. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Agree that blanket removal was overkill; also agree that the meta-story of minute-by-minute disclosure of who-said-what-on-which-channel-and-which-journalist-broke-it-first is excessive. I welcome MelanieN's offer to rewrite and condense this section, focusing it on the disclosure mini-story in a non-promotional tone, while moving relevant information about the meeting into the "Purpose" section. — JFG ^talk 06:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Calling American citizens "Russian"

I remember being attacked for simply changing "British solicitor" to "British born" and was told that what I did verges on racism. So here we have a section titled Russian lobbyists when one is a naturalized American citizen, and I have no idea where he was born. I only know he immigrated from Russia but is it so important to label someone by nationality? I think not. The section title should be Lobbyists without the labels. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rinat Akhmetshin is described in the section as "a Russian-American lobbyist". The section header is titled "Russian lobbyists" because both Akhmetshin and Natalia Veselnitskaya were lobbyists on behalf of Russia; that didn't change when Akhmetshin became an American citizen in 2009. Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

They are both Russian, and that's what all the fuss is about (right or wrong); we can't weasel this fact away by tweaking the section title. Guess I'll indulge in a Black Russian tonight. — JFG ^talk 06:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender said both were lobbyists on behalf of Russia. Where is the supporting evidence for that statement? Both have denied allegations of being connected to the Russian government. Akhmetshin stated that he is a "lobbyist for the Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation, which calls itself "a non-governmental organization established in Washington, D.C." and Natalia Veselnitskaya, has denied working for the Kremlin. Calling them Russian lobbyists is inappropriate because readers will interpret it wrong as did Softlavender. As to your question JFG, no, they're not both Russian. Akhmetshin is an American. WP shouldn't be labeling Americans according to what country they were born. If we have to tiptoe around gender and color, I doubt seriously nationality in today's world of open borders would be appropriate, do you? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

[10]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Allegations, not fact. Read the article carefully and you'll see how they hedge on making factual claims. They have no evidence to support it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the source says, quote "The Associated Press first reported Friday that a Russian-American lobbyist named Rinat Akhmetshin". It does not say "...that an ALLEGED Russian-American lobbyist". See WP:ALLEGED, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:WEASEL and WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And frankly to try and remove the "Russian" aspect to this meeting is outright ridiculous and obviously bad faithed. I mean, the freakin' article title is "Trump campaign-Russian meeting", it's not "Trump campaign-doop-dee-doop-doop-some-random-lobbyist-who-is-not-a-Russian-lobbyist-at-all-and-if-he-is-that's-only-alleged-doop-dee-doop-meeting" Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Read it again...it's not saying that he lobbies for the Russians because he denies that allegation. He was born in Russia but he is an American citizen. Get the facts straight. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

So... you do actually believe that we should remove the "Russian" part from this... "Trump campaign-Russian meeting" article? (nobody's denying he's an American citizen - see strawman. It's irrelevant to this discussion). Oooookayy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's see - there's one Russian lobbyist and one American lobbyist who was born in Russia. There could be a section titled Russian lobbyist for the one Russian lobbyist, and another section titled American lobbyist for the American lobbyist who was born in Russia, but oh gee, just calling it Lobbyist covers both of them. Duh. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the "Russian" part is sort of important, no? Is there even a single serious source which doesn't refer to them as Russian? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what the body text does. Justcurioushow long have you been editing? It was late, the template is acting strange, so I struck it.^{16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Atsme📞📧} 08:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that response makes no sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course he should be described as Russian-American. In the first place, that's how Reliable Sources describe him. In the second place, he was Russian for 42 years of his life and American for 8. In the third place, naturalized citizens are commonly described in that way; even Melania Trump is often described as "Slovenian-American". And regardless of what they say, both of them focus their lobbying on a Russian issue, namely, getting Russian sanctions (the Magnitsky Act) overturned. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree - the term is misleading as you can see by some of the interpretations of our own editors, and since this is a BLP, we are responsible for exercising extra caution. The sources intend to mislead the public, and they probably pay their writers by the word. Regardless, it is not our job to mislead just because the source misleads. That is our section title which we are responsible for, not the sources. I again point to the sensitivity we are required to exercise per BLP. Jiminy Cricket, WP is not the NYTimes (although it appears to be a favorite source) and we don't need bait-click traffic...or do we? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is misleading, and I don't think it is appropriate or justified for you to claim that "the sources intend to mislead the public", or to suggest that editors here are in search of "click-bait". On the contrary, IMO it would be misleading (as well as OR in defiance of what the sources say) to describe him as simply "American" - as if the first 42 years of his life don't count. "Russian-American" is exactly what he is, and a lobbyist primarily for Russian causes is his profession. Russian is what she is, and in this country she lobbies for Russian causes. "Russian lobbyist" is a fair description of both of them. You have given your opinion. Other people have given theirs. Let's see what the consensus turns out to be. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Russian-American" is correct, and "Russian" is OK too, depending on context.- MrX 22:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Natalia and Rinat are both Russian nationals (Rinat is a dual citizen, per press reporting). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Russian-born participants could work. It doesn't imply they were working or lobbying on behalf of the country of Russia, simply that they all were born there regardless of current citizenship. I don't really like the lobbyist description, because while Veselnitskaya does lobby for repealing the Magnitsky act, I wouldn't call her a lobbyist specifically over lawyer. So far it seems she hires Akhmetshin to do the lobbying for her. Soviet-born could also be option, which would involve bringing Kaveladze up, they all were born while it was USSR anyways I'm pretty sure, but I'm less inclined for that option. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• They both lobby on behalf of Russia, thus they are Russian lobbyists. The firm is an anti–Magnitsky Act lobbying firm; the "orphan adoption" ban was a retaliatory sanction imposed by Russia (not the U.S.), and so is a convenient cover-story they occasionally use, but has nothing to do with sanctions imposed by the U.S., so the lobbying against U.S. sanctions is not about that. The section title does not read "Kremlin lobbyists"; it correctly reads "Russian lobbyists", because they both lobby for Russian interests. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Making changes that have consensus

Unproductive bickering
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Volunteer Marek - please discuss changes to the sections we've already discussed and agreed to in a collaborative effort. Your edits were not helpful. Atsme📞📧 07:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC) First, you marked your unexplained, blind, and spurious revert as "minor". Which sort of shows you didn't even bother to read it. Second, that revert removed sensible and perfectly valid changes which included key information that has been omitted. Well soured key information. It appears you're making revenge reverts and/or engaging in straight up WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edit warring. Can you at least bother to explain WHY you removed these changes? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC) I read them all - and you're the one who isn't reading. Spend some time on this TP and see what our collaboration looks like so you can join us. Atsme📞📧 07:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Yeahhhhh.... what I see on this TP is mostly people complaining about your edits. So I'm having trouble understanding what you are talking about and you are making me wonder if you actually know what the word "collaboration" means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Please keep your comments focused on content, not editors. When the others see the changes, they'll be reverted. Atsme📞📧 08:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Come on guy. First you say "Spend some time on this TP and see what our collaboration looks like". Then I say "what I see on this TP is mostly people complaining about your edits." I am addressing your comment directly. Perhaps you shouldn't have brought the discussion on TP up in the first place, if you didn't want someone to point out that there's a ton of editors here disagreeing with you? Most definitely, having brought up the discussion on TP, you shouldn't have claimed consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC) I'm not a guy so stop referring to me as one, and leave me alone. MelanieN, JFG, and the others who have been collaborating here in a very productive manner will be back editing and you can direct your questions to them. Cheers. Atsme📞📧 08:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek and Atsme: This conflict between you two is getting out of hand and disrupting the stability of an already-controversial page. I have no interest in getting caught up in the nuances of what's going on, as I'm here to give input on the article and not the editors, so I'm going to have to ask that you two take it upon yourselves to settle this. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 09:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC) I ended it before you arrived DarthBotto, and now you just started it up again. Let sleeping dogs lie, please. Atsme📞📧 09:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yuri Y. Chaika thought to be behind meeting

Per NYT:

https://nyti.ms/2vvw0QJ

Needs to be includedCasprings (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Be bold, man, be bold… — JFG ^talk 13:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Also [11][12]. I agree that this should be included in the article.- MrX 13:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing new, the article gives some background information about Yuri, and it says it's believed he is behind meeting which they link back to that being said before. No new information or verification is even presented, they just gave his history. He is already mentioned in article as being who is believe that Crown Prosecutor means. What new detail are we suggesting to be added from this article? Maybe bringing the note from a notelist to body of article, but that could of been done anytime. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Are editors suggesting that we add yet another "believed to be" breaking news promo to help the NYTimes attract more clicks? 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing new. It is already suggested in the emails that he was the impetus behind the meeting. That's enough, unless all the Reliable Sources start trumpeting the connection. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Chaika is already noted on the page, but the context is not clear. This whole section is poorly written. This should not be only something "she said", but something generally believed to be the case according to RS. For example this publication tells: "Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met with the younger Mr. Trump, and her former husband both worked in the prosecutor’s office of the Moscow region, the district surrounding the capital, and would have been under Mr. Chaika’s overall umbrella.". See also a couple of paragraphs below. That is alleged connection. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The her and her husband working in the office in the region, and being under his Umbrella is alleged. But we aren't going to include that rubbish, especially when she has said she is in contact with him regularly herself. I feel its better to say she said she regularly speak to his office and him, than simply say it without the "she said". If there was a RS that wasn't source to her statement it would be better, but as far as I can tell this is all we have. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a notable allegation that must be included per BLP policy. What she tells/denies should also be noted, but only very briefly. As their teacher said, "you must deny everything, even if you was caught with your pants down". This is something they always do, no matter if it was Donbass, MH17 or "making America great". My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No where in BLP policy does it require you must put allegations into articles, there are actually recommendations not to do so, with the exception of public figures, which Veselnitskaya is not, and most definitely does not be become one by attending a meeting. Their teacher telling whoever to deny things, is irrelevant when she isn't denying her connection. As said before, it's reported she has links to Chaika, she has stated what those links are. The connect the dots must be associated due to job and timing allegation is pointless to include in the article. "Are you connected to Caika?", "Yes I am, I am in regular contact with him." At this point, it isn't even an allegation anymore it is a simple question that was asked and answered.

Regardless if you want to put her school teachings, or her connections to people's umbrellas she worked under more than a decade ago, feel free to do it over in Natalia Veselnitskaya, since that is her biography page. This article is about the meeting not about her. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Congressional reactions

@Atsme:: keep the congressional reactions to Congress, find a quote from Paul Ryan or someone, not a poll of Republican voters. The majority of Congress doesn't need to be mentioned in article as no one from Congress was at the meeting. Them being mute based on the article sourced is them being silent about it, not them being muted by someone else like in reads now in article. That paragraph you added should be redone. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I first thought the poll belonged in the reactions section, so I'll move it there; however, the inline text attributions that I added are Congressional reactions and they are compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Prior to my adding those comments, the section was weighty with mostly Democrat reactions. Considering Republicans are the majority in both House and Senate, and the President is also a Republican (or whatever) it was clearly WP:UNDUE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Looks much better. Thank you, WikiVirusC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I should of clarified. I wasn't really worried about the positioning of it, it was it being in the article. There was a discussion previously of what reactions we want to include, and voters was not one of them. So a poll of voters that happened before even half the details were revealed, is not useful, nor the next poll that is done, or the next. WikiVirusC^(talk)

Our 5 core content policies take precedence, specifically NPOV. Local consensus doesn't supercede policy, especially when it involves WP:CHERRYPICK not policy, and dismisses the inclusion of other information based on WP:DONTLIKE instead of being compliant with WP:WEIGHT. An RfC would be appropriate in this instance to remove the polling info because it is absolutely important to the Reaction section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel a RfC is needed, the polls are taking before half the facts are even out there(July 10 to 13). The 10th was before the emails were released, the 12-13th, were before the participants were even halfway revealed. Whether a poll is included at any point is one thing, but this poll is meaningless since it was taken before facts are even halfway complete. This isn't cherry picking, don't like, or anything NPOV. This poll contributes nothing about the meeting. Even ignoring the fact it was a poll that started before we had relative details, the poll is about whether voters think Russian tried to influence the election. If that poll was going to be included anywhere it would be Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not here. Find a poll about the meeting specifically if you want to include it in the article about the meeting. This meeting is one thing about the Russian/interference discussion, everything about that discussion doesn't need to be here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

All the allegations are meaningless until the people accused are proven guilty, so...? It's extremely important to know how voters felt about the Trump Jr. emails, and that is what the polls demonstrate. As for your reference about when they were taken, look at the timeline editors chose to keep in the article. Read the cited source because it is about the meeting and they included the polls. I used inline text attribution that cited the source the way it's supposed to be done according to policy. I disagree with your opinion as to where the information belongs because it actually was a reaction that occurred after Trump Jr. emails were published, which is pretty well explained by the headline, "After Trump Jr. Emails, Republicans Still Don’t Think Russia Interfered in Election," so to think it isn't related is ludicrous. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I have read the cited sources, the poll clearly states they started on July 10th. That means it 100% started being polled before the emails were released. The question did not ask about or reference the emails in the questioning. The headline states how they feel after said period of time about the interference discussion. It gives detail about their opinions on interference not opinions on the meeting. Newsweek can state what they want in the headline(after emails) so long as they put the actual facts(started before emails released, ended after) in the article which they did. From the poll question itself[13], this was the question asked:Q: Given what you've heard or read, do you think the Russian government tried to influence the outcome of last fall's U.S. presidential election, or not?/(IF YES) Do you think some members of Trump's presidential campaign intentionally helped Russian efforts, or not?.(emphasis added) That is about the Russian interference. If we want to use a poll question about the meeting, the one that relates to this meeting from the same poll is here: Q: Trump's son, Donald Jr.; his son-in-law Jared Kushner; and his campaign manager Paul Manafort met last summer with a Russian lawyer who said she had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Do you think it was appropriate or inappropriate for them to attend this meeting?(emphasis added) One question is about Russian interference, one question is about the meeting.

Once again, this article is about the meeting, voters reactions are not needed, nor are scholars reactions, or lawyers reaction, or any other uninvolved people reaction. The participants, and the relevant governments(US/Russia) are what matters. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The cited source states very clearly, "Donald Trump Jr. published the emails detailing what they were told Tuesday, July 11, during the period the Washington Post/ABC News poll was being conducted and even if you are an official pollster (whatever that means), the sources qualify inclusion of the material in the Reaction section. It is relevant. It may not reflect the results we expect, but it is relevant per the source. It is the only public reaction in the article, and I don't understand why you would not approve of including public reaction, after all, this encyclopedia is FOR the public. Why would you want to restrict reactions only to Washington insiders and those involved? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove it. The results of nationwide public polling, on a DIFFERENT subject (whether the Russians interfered in the election), would belong in the "Russian interference" article. They have nothing to do with this meeting. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. As WikiVirus stated above, if we are going to cite any polling results, it should be to the specific question about whether it was or was not appropriate for the Americans to attend the meeting. [14] A short summary would conclude that a majority of people polled thought it was inappropriate - even Republicans thought so. But I am not sure we need any polling results in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am clearly stating that same thing the email was release during the polling process. As in:the poll started before they were released. I have zero problem with the poll being on Wikipedia. I said it belong in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections not in Trump campaign–Russian meeting. Since the question being cited is about the interference specifically not about the meeting. I don't want to restrict anything permanently, and Washington insiders is not what was said. I already clarified why I don't want every immediate reaction included in the article, in the previous discussion about which reactions to include, my stance never changed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the polling information. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed rest of it, and moved an adjusted congress comments down to congressional reaction sentence. If we want a public reaction section, it needs to be a public reaction section, not a republic voters only section. And as I have stated before, it doesn't need to be immediately, with it being a developing story last week, polls conducted then are way too soon to be useful. Including the question I posted above that was directly about the meeting. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The rest does not pertain to the polling, and you can't just remove it based on WP:DONTLIKE. Call an RfC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC) ^{Strike because I just saw where part of it was moved to Congressional reactions. 19:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)}

When I added it last night, the subsection was called "Congressional testimonies" and my preference was to have it strictly about the scheduled hearings and what will come of them next week. I feel like there's hardly any distinction between the general congressional reactions and the hearings and in my opinion, the two should be organized accordingly. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Knee-jerk revert of hard work

Dear MrX, I take umbrage to your revert of my work consolidating duplicate sources. I spent a couple hours carefully checking all references and avoiding duplication, in order to clarify the sourcing for the benefit of readers. Your accusation that I "just removed sources need to verify the content" is unwarranted. To be precise, my edit did the following:

• grouped together under a single reference all sources that had been duplicated in the article ("NYT170712", "Met during campaign", "Helderman", "Prokupecz", "nyt070917" = "Becker", "Meeting" = "Apuzzo")
• completed and standardized citation format for some of those sources
• picked the best-formatted of two sources that had published the full email exchange (New York Times "Read the Emails" and Guardian "guardian full text", I kept the Times)
• cited only this full email exchange where our article directly quotes an email
• removed links to ONE article (the "nyt070917" source) because it was always cited together with another one from the same newspaper (the "Met during campaign" source) and did not bring more information to the reader
• removed useless technical parameters from source URLs

As your revert cannot be undone due to further changes, I would respectfully urge you to revert to my consolidated version, and then take the trouble of applying your subsequent changes if you wish. — JFG ^talk 16:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It was not a knee jerk. I gave a lot of consideration before I tried to only revert (failing because the software can't handle it) your so called "consolidation of sources" which was really a removal of sources. You replaced some of those removals with a single, very weak source. I specifically compared versions and searched for URLs in the previous version to verify that they were not in your revision. I would like to know why you removed those sources.- MrX 16:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I just took the trouble of giving you a detailed breakdown of everything I changed in this edit. Which exact part are you complaining about? — JFG ^talk 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove these?

Sources

- MrX 16:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources 1 and 2 were part of a cluster of four sources referencing a quoted email by Goldstone. A single source to the full email exchange was enough. Source 3 was a duplicate of the "Helderman" article. — JFG ^talk 16:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

And that's where I have a big problem. Multiple sources often source specific facts not found in other sources. They also demonstrate WP:DUEWEIGHT and help readers by linking to sources with different perspective. I think it is a very bad practice to remove any reliable sources from a highly controversial article about an evolving subject. I have been editing these types of articles for five years and I've often seen editors remove sources to undermine verifiably, so that other editors would come along later and remove the content. I know you're not one of those types of editors, but I am mindful of other editors who will remove content that they disagree with for any reason, no matter how weak.- MrX 17:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I wish editors would employ the proper use of <ref name=???> which would help eliminate some of the duplicate sourcing. We actually have a couple of good essays about WP:Citation overkill and WP:Citation underkill. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes! I wholeheartedly agree.- MrX 17:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I agree that editors should not remove informative sources when citing "specific facts not found in other sources"; I did none of that. Do you see a "big problem" with the examples 1, 2, 3 that you outlined? Was there anything else in my edit you disapproved of, and why? (I see you disagreed with some other edits, and that's fine; let's just get to the bottom of my source consolidation edit, please.) — JFG ^talk 18:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I gave two additional reasons for not removing sources. The article is in the early stages of being built. Now is the time to be adding source, not removing them. I do support consolidating duplicate (i.e. identical URL) sources by using ref name parameter. Does that answer your question, or am I missing the point?- MrX 19:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You are still speaking in general terms, whereas I gave you detailed and specific actions taken in this edit, asking you to which actions you specifically object. You asked a question about three sources, which I answered (two useless and one duplicate). Is there anything else justifying your revert? — JFG ^talk 20:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I also objected to using the email transcript so liberally as a source (while removing other, better sources). I also wasn't crazy about you adding the word "purportedly".- MrX 21:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As explained, I retained one full transcript of the emails for citations where we quote the exact words of such emails. What do you call a "better source" for verbatim email quotes? I did not change a single word of article prose in the "consolidation of sources" edit. The word "purportedly" was added in a separate edit and has since been removed; I have no objection to that. Now can you please restore my work on consolidating sources, or should I do it myself? — JFG ^talk 00:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, this was a helpful edit to the lead by JFG, which I reinstated: diff. Excessive detail about minor participants. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  I have no objection to removing that level of detail from the lead.- MrX 19:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Aside from the translator who was actually used as a translator and is a a translator by trade, how can we determine who else was minor and who wasn't? If we start being selective, its going to be controversial. People will say since Kushner was only there for 5mins, he is minor, Manafont was on phone for entire time therefore minor and so on. This will bring issues I think. Other stuff could be trimmed down for sure though. Is there a need for Ms. Universe connection to be in the lead? Couldn't Kushner/Manafont not needing to disclose anything be moved down to body. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree about moving "why didn't Trump Jr. and Manafort need to disclose?" out of the lede, and I have done so.--MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Your answer is built-in to the question - Kushner was in attendance for 5 min., also present were a professional translator, so-and-so (who was invited by? who also speaks fluent Russian), and so on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ukranian involvement in this mess...

Close as "withdrawn"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The public is already aware of the Clinton campaign's opposition research and interference by a foreign government as reported by Politico - do we have an article on that? Anyway, while I was doing a bit of research on Manafort's role for this article, I stumbled across this tidbit in the The Atlantic which states: Politico reports that as part of this effort, Chalupa cultivated a network of sources in Ukraine and the United States, including “investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence operatives.” She “occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign” and voiced her concerns about Manafort’s Russia ties with Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Valeriy Chaly, during a meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy. And the denial, of course,: The Ukrainian president has denied targeting Manafort (the government agency conducting the investigation is independent of the president’s office). But Leshchenko, a member of the president’s political bloc, admitted at the time that one of his goals in raising alarms about Manafort was to expose Trump as a “pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world” Oh, what a tangled web we weave. Just curious... do we have an article about any of this? Since there is a lot of coverage comparing the two events, we wouldn't be violating WP:SYNTH to show how foreign governments and political candidates are always meddling in elections. Here's a thought - we merge this Russia meeting as suggested in lieu of deleting it, and wait for the story to develop into something. In the interim, we create an article about that focuses on foreign meddling using Clinton's Ukraine and Trump's Russia? Doesn't get any more neutral than that. Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union and is at odds with Russia so there is definitely a connection. Do we already have articles about this topic? Atsme📞📧 21:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)strike irrelevant questions, highlight related to this article.21:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC) This article's talk page isn't the place to discuss Ukraine or Clinton or the DNC, and any related potential articles. A ton of places you could ask your question to. Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine, Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or any relating portals. If Clinton had won there would be a lot more weight and notability to argue with everywhere, but since Trump won, the notable topics will be nearly all be around him. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC) It's connected because of Monafort and the comment by Leshchenko. Skip over the other but the point I was making about Monafort is relevant. Atsme📞📧 21:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Then Talk:Paul Manafort is where the discussion can also go. Aside from attending the meeting and having the email forwarded to him, he is barely even mentioned in this article as we removed all random stuff about him from article. This would be included with that would be random stuff. It's all unrelated to the meeting. It's Russia/Trump article or the bio of Manafort article, not in this one. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC) The cases may have some superficial similarities, but they differ in volume and depth of Reliable Source coverage by a factor of 10 or maybe 100. One reason for that is that Russia aggressively intervened in the U.S. election in a lot more ways than just passing along information - such as hacking political party servers, releasing the results in a way carefully timed to do the maximum damage to one candidate, and probing or actually breaching state election servers (we still don't know the extent or effect of that, or what they might have learned to use in the NEXT election). And of course there is a serious, year-old, ongoing federal investigation into what Russia did; is there any investigation involving Ukraine? You can create an article about this if you want, but I'm guessing it would get merged to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Really? Well, rather than speculate, let's go with what MSM is telling us about the two: The Atlantic, Business Insider, WaPo, Politifact, The Hill, NPR, The Guardian, shall I go on? Atsme📞📧 23:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose at this time. Speculation and opinion pieces; too soon to include. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose 1. One original source with no-one confirming the reporting. 2. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/11/exploring-sean-hannitys-defense-of-donald-trump-jr-clinton-and-ukraine-did-it-too/?utm_term=.69c63c87c157 The Reporting relies specifically on one person who was researching Manafort with help from inside the Ukrainian Embassy and who, at some undetermined point, provided info to the Clinton campaign. By contrast, U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directed his intelligence agencies to hack into and release private information from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. These things are not the same thing and we shouldn't be fooled into thinking they are because of a talking point from Sean Hannity. Casprings (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Sorry, but it belongs in the section "Reactions" as that is exactly what is happening. The MSM is reacting. Inclusion follows all relevant PAGs, so whoever wishes to add some of these revelations to the "Reactions" section are perfectly free to do so. You can't oppose something that hasn't been added, yet, because you don't even know what it is. This is part of the problem we've been facing with this entire article. We don't need for it to look like a WaPo opinion piece - WP is an encyclopedia for Pete's sake. Who is Pete, anyway? Atsme📞📧 01:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC) I think it is WP:UNDUE, but I look forward to the thoughts of others.Casprings (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC) OK, let's look at those sources. The Atlantic article is inspired by complaints about lack of coverage about Hillary and Ukraine from (of all people) Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh; hardly a neutral source to make the case. The rest of the article details some Ukrainian connections and then explains why the Ukranian operation was "pretty small beer" and didn't come close to the magnitude of the Russian operation. I have to go out now and I'll look at the rest of the sources tomorrow, but that is not a strong start for your campaign to treat these two cases equally. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC) MelanieN you know full well the source doesn't have to be neutral. What are you saying? You think the NYTimes is neutral, or WaPo? Seriously? These are the same sources that are being used in this article. Are they suddenly not worth inclusion because you don't like who they've interviewed? I ask that you please rethink your comments. Atsme📞📧 02:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose, for the following reasons: They are VERY different scenarios and bear no comparison, except as a desperate attempt at deflection by the Trump campaign. Here's how they are different in just about every way possible: A possible traitor got caught by investigators and the investigators reported their findings to others, so the GOP and Trump campaign accuse the investigators who caught them. The possible traitor was doing wrong, and the investigators were doing their patriotic duty to expose seemingly treasonous behavior. One was expressly for the purpose of illegally influencing the American election, while the other was to expose the illegal attempt. One was a criminal action, the other an action directed at exposing the crime. Here's a very precise analogy: No court would ever legitimize the excuse of a burglar who accused the homeowners, who were his victims, for not preventing him from stealing from them, but that is exactly what the Trump campaign has been doing by attacking Clinton and Obama. So there is no real connection, or even parallel, between the two situations. The only justification for short mention is that Veselnitskaya arranged explicitly to pass along potentially damaging information about Hillary Clinton gathered by the Russian government, IF it was this information. The only other reason is as an absurd attempt at deflection, as noted by The New York Times: "Unlike Mr. Trump’s [Junior] emails, the Clinton campaign email does not prove that a foreign entity was offering things of value to the campaign for the purposes of affecting the election, said Stephen Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas." There are several RS which debunk the Trump administration's attempts to push this story as a defense of their actions. If this is included, then those sources will be used to debunk the story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose per BullRangifer's analysis.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn - I agree. Atsme📞📧 03:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose, per excellent rationale by BullRangifer in analysis, above. Sagecandor (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC) BullRangifer's claim that there is a meaningful difference between the Clinton campaign accepting Ukrainian opposition research on Paul Manafort's (and, by extension, Trump's) possibly illicit dealings with Russia and the Trump campaign accepting Russian opposition research on Clinton's possibly illicit dealings with Russia, based solely on BullRangifer's contention that Trump is a "traitor," is in fact an obvious fallacy, equivalent to arguing that the Trump campaign's actions were justified for nearly the same reason or that Russia/Wikileaks did the U.S. a favor by exposing DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to undermine Bernie Sanders. (As well as various other misdeeds: Donna Brazile sharing at least two debate questions, Saudi/Qatari support for ISIS, ect.) In addition, as the lawyers will tell you, "treason" does not apply to nations with which the U.S. is at peace, hence why American businessmen who collaborated with Nazi Germany as late as 1940 were not convicted of it. (BullRangifer may argue, as does Dick Cheney, that Russian hacking was an act of war, but the U.S. clearly has not responded in kind ... )TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ike Kaveladze is 8th person

Some decent info about the 8th person at the meeting: http://cnn.it/2tC5pA7 Casprings (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's be patient and let the story develop into something besides a bait-click headline. I liked it better when newspapers came to us in print form. They were far more accurate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

So, uh, what is this "inaccuracy"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/eighth-person-in-trump-tower-meeting-is-identified/2017/07/18/e971234a-6bce-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html?utm_term=.430e46947837 Should be included. Casprings (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this sentence, "The request is the first public indication that Mueller’s team is investigating the meeting." Is a very significant detail for editors to include. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 18:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's already in the article though. Robert Mueller, the special counsel of the Department of Justice in charge of Russia-related investigations, is investigating the emails..

A WP:CRYSTALBALL was used, and it was correct! j/k j/k, before sources said they planned to, now they say they are investigating. The article has said for a while they already are, based on the plan to. We can add the confirmed source though to citations. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of prez announcement

MelanieN, what is this edit? Mueller has not confirmed that Prez Trump was aware of the meeting - nobody can at this point. Where is the consensus that agreed to include it? Unsupported conspiracy theories and allegations/innuendos based on a circumstantial timeline that cannot be verified doesn't belong in WP, not to mention the fact that candidate Trump's announcement has no relevancy to the meeting until his involvement is proven. It's circumstantial which puts the onus on the editors who want to include it to explain why they think it's worthy of inclusion. All the non-compliant theories and speculation that have been added to this article after we worked so hard to reach neutral ground via consensus appears to have been for naught, because I've been getting unwarranted warnings on my TP while the editors gang up and destroy this article. A closer watch needs to be placed on NPOV & UNDUE. Supported facts are what outweigh MSM conspiracy theories and should take precedence. We need to exercise patience until after Mueller's investigation of the meeting has been completed. Previously you asked me to specifically name the polices that are being violated, so here they are: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP (WP:PUBLICFIGURE), and the guidelines for WP:CITE, WP:UNDUE for starters - all of which I've stated repeatedly throughout. Please revert the non-compliant material, and let's get consensus before including any further statements that throw this article over the policy cliff. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. It's a simple fact widely-reported by new sources in their coverage of this subject. It may be circumstantial as to whether Trump was aware of the meeting at the time, but it does arouse suspicion, which is why sources have highlighted it. Since you mentioned WP:PUBLICFIGURE, allow me to quote it:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

- MrX 22:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Mellow out, Atsme. You might notice that a few minutes after inserting that detail, I also inserted the information that both Trump Sr. and Trump Jr. say that Trump Sr. was not aware of the meeting. And BTW Trump's announcement (without the qualifiers I added) has been in the article for days. I just forgot to include it when I revised the section. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, what words did you use to convey that they were "not aware of the meeting"? That will help me find it. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, BullRangifer. This is the paragraph under discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In a speech a few hours later, on the evening of June 7, candidate Donald Trump announced an upcoming "major speech", tentatively set for six days later, in which he would be "discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons". However, he never delivered the promised speech about the Clintons. Trump Jr. says he did not tell his father about the meeting, and the senior Trump says he didn't know about it until it was publicized in July 2017.

Sources

Thanks, MelanieN. No wonder I couldn't find it. It's been removed. My immediate concern, a big red flag, was the implication that Trump Sr. didn't know about the meeting, even though he was in the building (one floor above the meeting) at the time. That Trump Jr. claims he didn't tell his father, and that Trump Sr. claims he didn't know until July 2017, are a very different matter. That strains all credulity, and no logical person would believe them, but we have to follow what RS say.

Whether we should include this or not....? I'm not sure. The part we should include is the explicit denials. That's very relevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, I think there might be some error; the paragraph appears to have been explicitly & intentionally removed in this edit, by other editor. So, not an artifact of your revision of the section.- Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC) -Hopefully clarifying - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm of two minds on the inclusion - still weighing up whether the explicit double standard in WP:SYNTH (do not imply or state something not explicitly stated by sources) is likely intentional or accidental. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, now I see what happened. The item about Trump promising info about Clinton has been in the article for days. I revised the section at 00:00, leaving that paragraph in. User:JFG removed that paragraph from the section at 02:17. I didn't realize it had been intentionally removed - I thought I must have accidentally left it out - so I re-inserted it at 20:36 and added the "he didn't know about the meeting" sentence at 20:49. That's apparently the paragraph Atsme is referring to here. OK, so that makes it "controversial" per Wikipedia guidelines and I should not have restored it. I have self-reverted while we discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Lorty, I enjoy collaborating with you, MelanieN - oh, and I've switched to Decaf, can you tell? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Should we restore the paragraph about Trump promising information about Clinton (including the sentence that he didn't know about the meeting), or should it be left out?

• Yes - Per WP:DUEWEIGHT. The material is brief, balanced, factual, and on topic. It has been covered in relation to the Trump-Russia meeting in numerous sources: Business Insider,Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Vox, USA Today, CNN, NPR, Time, Sydney Morning Herald, Newsweek, The Guardian, and The New York Times to name a few. It would be immensely helpful if, before editors remove this type of relevant material, they would consult a simple news search. Throwing up a bunch of alphabet soup policy links (like WP:CITE) that have nothing to do with the content in dispute only wastes other editors time.- MrX 02:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Also, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."- MrX 02:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• No- it's supposition, he wasn't at the meeting, this article is about Trump Jr. and a meeting, not about the presidential candidate. So shall we include some passages about Hillary, too? C'mon, folks - it's unrelated speculation. You have no idea what Trump-o was talking about he was going to present. Comey may have given him something to run with, which actually did happen when Comey made all those blunders. Comey was more significant than this Russian fantasy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Well reported on and needed per WP:Weight. The article is not saying he knew, just reporting the fact of the speech.Casprings (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, what speech, Casprings? The one that didn't happen? Now that's worth writing home about. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• No Whether intentional or not, the material has an air of saying something without actually saying it, attempting to link two unrelated events as a workaround to avoid blatant character assassination. If the event was notable and/or related, we would see moderate and right-leaning sources (not just the left-leaning sources) encouraging the reader to connect these alleged dots. There's lots of speculation and "what if's" surrounding the meeting, but let's leave that for the blogs, magazines, and cable news outlets. There's lots of facts about the meeting. A fact being reported by a RS is not the only requirement for its inclusion in an article. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes We are in the business of reporting what reliable sources state. The No's above are making WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither of the two No's above your vote are saying anything remotely close to "I don't like it." Ironically enough, you're essentially making the argument that votes opposite from yours are invalid...because you don't like the votes. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• No -- it's uknowable what Trump may have been thinking about. Let's have the investigators determine that. The sources are not reporting whether Trump even knew. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• No – It's simply off-topic speculation. — JFG ^talk 04:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• No: It could be speculative or irrelevant for all we know. My personal opinion is that until Robert Mueller says they are connected events, we don't speculate. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• No - It is mentioned in sources yes, but A LOT of things are mentioned in sources that discuss this meeting. Everything that is found does't justify it's inclusion into every or any specific article. This article is about the meeting, not the campaign or. If a link is found in the future then include it then when that happens. We are not here to speculate, to investigate, or to find the links ourselves whether or not someone else in a sources implies, suggest, or thinks there is one. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - Per in-depth-analysis, above, by MrX, adeptly showing significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, sure, this must be included as something central to the subject of the page and well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Another question

moot; the material is already in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BullRangifer suggested above that regardless of whether or not we mention Trump's promise of an upcoming speech about the Clintons (consensus seems to be building not to mention it), we should include the following in the article: Trump Jr. says he did not tell his father about the meeting, and the senior Trump says he didn't know about it until it was publicized in July 2017. Sources Do people think this should be in the article, and if so where? In the "leadup" section? --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC) No - Why would we include information refuting what is not otherwise claimed in the article? If 12 reliable sources don't convince editors to include relevant content, then I struggle to understand the justification for including this. It's already evident that Trump Sr. was not at the meeting simply by reading what's already in the article.- MrX 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Reactions - We have On July 10, 2017, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president had learned of the meeting only "in the last couple of days". On July 12, President Trump gave an interview with Reuters where he reiterated that he had only known about the meeting for "a couple of days and that "many people would have held that meeting". Trump Jr. gave an interview to Fox News's Sean Hannity in which he denied having told his father about the meeting." in the reactions section already. It isn't needed anywhere else in body, lead-up or else where. It also does not need to be in lead, which already needs to be trimmed down imo. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC) That seems to settle it - it's already in the article, in the Reactions section. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC) That wording is a bit different than what you proposed, but it makes more sense given the context.- MrX 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Looks good to me. It serves the purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculing the president ?

This recent edit [15] refers to the reaction of President Trump in the form of his Tweets after his son's release of the chain of emails. Is this really necessary? I feel that juxtaposing these helpless and borderline childish tweets with the official hearing that will see his son's public testimony under oath amounts to an undue ridicule of an already deeply troubled president. Can we have a discussion of whether these tweets are suitable here? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree on all points. It's really not encyclopedic.- MrX 14:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't go there - you are not even considering WEIGHT, NPOV and if you are even hinting that the President of the US making a comment about this event that has been published by numerous RS is not encyclopedic, you can't be serious. That is your opinion and reflects a bias to this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

user: MrX, I agree in one sense and disagree in another. In a certain sense, much of what Trump says and does is not "encyclopedic", but we are not dealing with a normal situation or normal person. All his tweets, no matter how ridiculous, are official Presidential record and automatically notable. In this case they are a very notable reaction, so this should be included. How it's included can be discussed, but it should be included in one way or another, possibly with RS commentary.

As to "ridiculing...", he does that fine without any help. We just mirror what's happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

^{Can't argue with that position. 🤣 Atsme📞📧 14:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)}

In fact, we should have a separate section for "Presidential reactions", with the RS reactions it has generated. There is much more than tweets. There are many significant reactions from Trump Sr. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That could be it's own article - ugh. Let's not tread on WP:UNDUE, and let the sleeping dog lie. Just my thoughts...^{Atsme📞📧} 14:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Irrespective of the opinions of wikipedians on Trump's tweets, they don't bring any content about the article subject (just generalities "My son did great" and "Media peddle fake news", nothing about the actual meeting or events surrounding it), hence they should be omitted. — JFG ^talk 14:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Right. To clarify my point, we tend to use way too many direct quotes in these political controversy articles, which is kind of lazy writing (I do it too). I would prefer if we would just paraphrase the analysis from third party sources whenever possible.- MrX 15:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree 100% - they are as important to the Reaction section - even more so - than the emails. We're talking about the President of the US and his son, so to say the President's tweets don't bring any content is ludicrous. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Atsme. He is the president. His words, and yes, his tweets, are always news and are widely quoted. If people think they make him look ridiculous, that is their opinion and does not override the fact that Reliable Sources cover them. Twitter is his primary method of communication, by his own choice, and what he says (whether orally or via Twitter) is worth reporting. Why would you consider it more appropriate to quote a staff-written release from the White House, or a comment by a spokesperson, rather than what he himself says? --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Who are you asking? I said we should reflect what journalists write about Trump's tweets, rather than simply include the unfiltered Tweets. I suppose it depends on the situation, but in this case, his Tweets are pretty meaningless.- MrX 20:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hats off to JFG who was the first to challenge my underhanded ridicule of Trump's tweets, as opposed to implicitly accepting it by actually discussing my proposal. :-) On top of that, I agree with their argument that these specific tweets do not bring anything of relevance to this article. Lklundin (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC) PS. I apologize to all involved and promise to try to avoid repeating a digression such as this one...

@Lklundin: Thanks! I have now described President Trump's reaction in prose and removed the direct quotes of his tweets.[16] Hope this satisfies everybody in this thread. — JFG ^talk 21:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Special counsel

I believe the following two sentences should be removed from the Special Counsel section:

According to reports provided by an unidentified person familiar with the probe, Mueller is examining Trump's businesses and those of his associates. The President said that digging into matters beyond Russia would be "out of bounds".

Sources

IMO this information would be appropriate for the Special Counsel articles, and possibly the Russian interference article, but I don't see what it has to do with this meeting. (This is often a problem when we have so many related articles: people put valid material into the wrong article.) What do the rest of you think about this information? --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN caught on camera minutes before tragically pulling her hair out

(edit conflict)^{I was actually in the process of posting your comment (the talkref debacle) but you beat me to it. 🤣 Atsme📞📧 20:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)}

@Atsme: The technical issue stemmed for <ref name=???> which was not escaped, so the wikitext parser got lost a bit further down. No harm done. — JFG ^talk 20:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x3 ^{JFG is right. It turned out the problem had to do with a <ref name=???> several discussions above. I nowikied it and that solved the problem.--MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)}

^{BTW I trust everybody had a good laugh watching me tear my hair out wondering what was going wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)}

^{No, no, no! Carry on. I just bought stock in Rogaine. Atsme📞📧 20:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)}

Such a shame! Such beautiful, tremendous hair! Sad! — JFG ^talk 21:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

^{That's all right - now I match my hubby! --MelaniaT (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)}

(edit conflict) Agree. It's tiresome to patrol the repeated claims across various articles. Address the topic fully, and only the topic. (Or pray for editors to stop creating a new article for every news half-cycle, but I may be dreaming…) — JFG ^talk 20:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All that work for nothing, MelanieN.😂 A little retrospect, and I agree so I self-removed ^{Is that a proper term? Atsme📞📧} 20:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

^{I see that you were kind of hesitant about it - edit summary "self remove since it's not a revert?" You can just say "removing", or if you want backup "removing per talk page" or "removing per (whatever is your valid reason)". --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)}

^{MelanieN How about: They made me do it! 😂 Atsme📞📧 00:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)}

^{That should work. Or better yet... --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)}

^{OMG what fun memories!! Atsme📞📧 17:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)}

Very Shakespearean. --MelaniaT (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This material does belong in the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article, but its connection to this article is weak.- MrX 20:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday I added Trump's most recent response to the 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team article, which I believe is the appropriate venue for this information. Here? Not so much. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You know, the more I think about it, the whole Mueller section should be removed and a brief statement added to the timeline that everybody believes is so important. Add when the DOJ appointed Mueller as special counsel and that investigations into Russian involvement include this meeting, which is actually by-catch of the investigation. The details belong in 2017_Special_Counsel_for_the_United_States_Department_of_Justice_team since they are routinely asking for documents from everybody Russian and/or their associates, friends, acquaintenances, etc. That's what investigations do - not a biggy. Now if a BleachBit/hammer party begins at Trump Tower, that might be worthy of inclusion, provided we can prove there was evidence on their cell phones, hard drives, and iPads that involved the meeting. But wait, if they've been destroyed, there won't be any evidence, right? Anyway, I reverted this little tidbit of a routine request by Special Counsel but it was reverted, despite its routineness and redundancy - we already know Mueller is investigating everything Russian - it should be in the timeline, not as a special section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC) ^{Done, fixed it.19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)}

The meeting is only notable because it is a key part of the investigation, so to remove the Mueller section is to remove a corner stone of the meeting's notability. And, of course, it is routine for a special counsel to request that the White House to preserve documents on a daily basis. Let's just stick to what reliable sources say and do our best to keep our own biases out of it. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Really? Well, if that's true, then the information I included that was reverted/removed belongs back in the article. I'm beginning to sense a bit of tag-team behavior, and don't appreciate it one bit. When I add something of relevance, it's reverted because I didn't seek consensus - when others do it, consensus is not needed? My reverts are being tag-team deleted despite no consensus. That isn't how collaborative editing works. Based on what you just stated above, this article needs to be merged into the Investigation section of Special Counsel investigation of the Trump Campaign's coordination with the Russian government.^{21:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC

FYI, the article about the special counsel team is being expanded into an article about the special counsel investigation broadly construed: 2017 Special Counsel investigation. Feel free to move relevant contents from here to there, leaving a short summary behind. — JFG ^talk 23:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with Atsme that her edits should not be so brashly removed; I happen to agree with her that there isn't entirely a need for a separate subsection about the special counsel. However, I do think "Special counsel routinely sends requests to those under investigation requesting that all related documents be preserved" is a dismissive and unsubstantial way of addressing it. "On July 21, 2017, Mueller asked the White House to preserve all documents related to the Russian meeting in June" tells much more. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If I may add what CNN actually stated in the article (and the kind of statement that is often buried by the sensationalism): "Such notices are frequently sent in the early stages of investigation and puts those who receive it on notice..." So, yes, frequently sent=routine. Bottomline, at this point in the game, it's all media hype. They wrote a whole article basically rewording what they've said over and over again - innuendo, hype, trying to make something out of nothing, and it goes on and on to keep the bait & clicks going. Seriously, what else are they going to write about that has attracted so much opposition attention. Sorry, but I see this stuff through the eyes of a journalist (what I did for a few years before I retired) ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 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: Withdrawn by nominator, considering SNOW opposition and other open discussions. — JFG ^talk 00:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Trump campaign–Russian meeting → Trump–Veselnitskaya meeting – The news cycle has subsumed, all meeting participants have been identified, and we have a clear idea that the main protagonists were Natalia Veselnitskaya on one side (lobbying for her pet topic), and Donald Trump Jr. on the other (expecting some dirt on Hillary). According to sources, Kushner only stayed a few minutes and Manafort paid more attention to his phone. Consequently, Trump–Veselnitskaya meeting would be a more WP:PRECISE title. We already have a redirect from Veselnitskaya meeting but that does not give enough context, we must name the main protagonist on the other side of the table. — JFG ^talk 14:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it was Trump Jr that brought in the other two, but they all were expecting some dirt. Its not like he was the only one. Even Trump Jr has said very early on he realized it wasnt going to be that and he stopped caring about meeting early on. The campaign manager attending makes it a lot harder for anyone to spin it as just a business meeting even if the emails weren't out there. If we wanted to change out Russian in the title, it's an option. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - this article needs to be merged in the 2017 Special Counsel investigation under the section, Investigations. It simply isn't that big a deal because nothing happened, there is no evidence that supports the claims and being under investigation should not be the only thing that makes it notable; however, as other editors have indicated, that is the only reason at this point in time that it's notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABLE. There were two groups who met: Senior members of the Trump campaign and some Russians. The current title is precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article as mandated by WP:PRECISE.- MrX 15:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The meeting was between top campaign officials and muliple persons with connections to the Russian government, including spy agencies. The title should indicate thaf.Casprings (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The current title is more accurate and specific enough. Also, we're trying to close the other discussions, including a deletion review and a merger discussion. These are disruptive enough without nominating it for everything in the book. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with rationale by MrX that there were two groups who met: Senior members of the Trump campaign and some Russians. Agree with Casprings that the meeting was between top campaign officials and muliple persons with connections to the Russian government, including spy agencies. Agree with DarthBotto that we're trying to close the other discussions, including a deletion review and a merger discussion. However, I do agree that the title should be changed to something else. I've already mentioned, above, back on 12 July 2017, that the title should be changed to something more specific, as there were multiple other meetings that took place with multiple Trump members and multiple Russian officials together at other times. Sagecandor (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mr.X.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title does a good job of identifying the participants. The proposed change, by saying "Trump" instead of "Trump campaign", implies that President Trump himself was involved, which is misleading and unacceptable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Procedural note: we really shouldn't be discussing a title change, much less formal Proposed Move, while the merge request is still open. I would propose you withdraw this request until that issue is formally resolved. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 23 July 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.

One Revert Rule

Can someone restore this revision and add http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/11/media/new-york-times-donald-trump-jr-emails/index.html as a source after:When he was informed that the New York Times was about to publish the email chain leading up to the meeting, he tweeted the full emails himself, and explained that he considered the meeting to be "Political Opposition Research".

Someone else has to do it. Thanks WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is not subject to a one revert rule, a testament to the congenial editing we have all tried to adhere to.- MrX 19:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I know there is no 1RR warning specifically on this page, but I just follow it on all Donald Trump and closely related pages due to the sanctions and whatnot that are everywhere with article involving politics. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:52, July 25, 2017 (UTC)

Challenged source

I'll begin by citing BLP policy: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. This edit is a claim by the NYT and it is sourced to the NYT. I removed it, WikiVirusC reverted, and I removed it again based on the above policy. In my edit summary, I asked the editor to find a different source. Also, if Trump Jr. has responded to that claim, it also needs to be included. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me what is considered contentious materia? The New York times saying they asked for a comment? Are they being contentious about themselves? Or Trump Jr. tweeting out the emails himself? Is that contentious? Both things are widely reported. A simple {{citation needed}} is all that is needed, rather than multiple reverts. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Where is the proof that Trump Jr made the decision to be transparent BECAUSE of the NYTimes? Where does that come from other than the NYTimes and others quoting the NYTimes? We have what's called WP:V which is policy. Making allegations based purely on coincidence doesn't cut the mustard. We are talking about a BLP violation, so if we have to go and get this resolved at a higher court, I'm ready. Are you? The sources do not/cannot verify that he posted those emails based strictly on the NYTimes. Correct me if I'm wrong - where is the verifiable evidence? Is that what Trump Jr. said - that the NYTimes made him decide to be transparent? What if Trump's campaign attorneys advised him to be transparent - COINCIDENTALLY at the same time the NYTimes CLAIMS they discussed it with Trump Jr.? After he discovered what the Russian attorney was doing, I'm sure he consulted the attorneys, not the NYTimes, regarding what he should do. Seriously - let's stick with V and BLP, not what you or the NYTimes wishes it would be. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

After being asked to comment on the emails by the New York Times, Trump Jr tweeted the email chain and explained that he considered the meeting to be "Political Opposition Research". He summarized the meeting as "such a nothing... a wasted 20 minutes". This is how it is in the article now. There is nothing saying the reason that he made the decision, it simply states it happened afterwards. There is no mention of any consulting of attorneys anywhere. Nor did anyone imply he contacted the Times after the meeting. No one is wishing anything to be anything other than what was reported. Changing things, where the version we have had for a while stated all the facts, to a new version where his statement was the only fact given is not going to hold up. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of available sources like this one that support the text as of this edit. I assume this is now resolved?- MrX 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Coincidence. Show me some RS that don't source the NYTimes statement to the claim, which is based on absolutely nothing but conjecture or coincidence based purely on the timing. That fails WP:V in a big way. Why is this fallacious claim even relevant? Is this a move to help the NYTimes recover its "clout" because that's what it appears to be? How does anyone know outside the Trump campaign what actually took place after Trump Jr.'s meeting or why the decision was made to publish the emails? Show me sources that don't mirror the NYTimes' claim. Is there a reason we should believe the NYTimes was the only one who knew anything? What about the NBC report? How do we know the Trump campaign's decision wasn't a direct result of the campaign attorneys' recommendation once they discovered what took place at the meeting? You're going to take the NYTimes word for it, and the mirrored sites word for it? How does that satify WP:V? How do you know that after the meeting, Don Jr or Kushner didn't meet with POTUS after the meeting, explain what happened at the meeting in the presence of counsel, and then counsel suggested transparency, not the NYTimes? This is all bullhonkey trying to make it look like the only reason the emails came forward was because of the NYTimes. NYTimes certainly didn't have exclusive access to Trump Jr - I would think just the opposite, wouldn't you? The world knows what the Trump campaign thought of the NYTimes being fake news, etc., so isn't the real question here "How did the NYTimes get access to Trump Jr.'s emails? Ohhhh...did anybody think of that? Our primary concern as editors should be compliance with PAGs. Sorry, but citing the NYTimes' as the source for a NYTimes claim is noncompliant with BLP as I pointed out above, and that includes other sources that cite the NYTimes as the source of the claim. What we need is corroboration of the NYTimes claims - another reporter for a different source who can verify that Trump Jr. published the emails because of the NYTimes "threat" or whatever you want to call it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding..."Trump Jr. said he was releasing the emails "to be totally transparent." But an editor for The New York Times said the emails were made public by Trump Jr. after he was informed the paper was publishing a story about them." <---NPOV. I have no objection to it being worded in that manner. (no copyvio, please). ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Y'all change things faster than I can post a comment and review what I wrote. MrX - I'm ok with the way it is in the article now. My apologies for the tl;dr garbage above. I just can't think as fast as you guys edit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The dossier connection

I think it's time to discuss behavior such as this revert which claims there had already been a discussion and it was decided that it was WP:UNDUE. Please point me to that discussion. Now then, with regards to its inclusion - I consider it highly relevant - and found a paragraph about it in Fusion_GPS#Alleged_involvement_in_Veselnitskaya_meeting, which speaks further to my suggestion to merge all of these "allegations" into the main article 2017 Special Counsel investigation. Something has to be done because this is getting to be ridiculous, and it has to stop. We currently have the following articles about this same topic:

1. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
2. 2017 Special Counsel investigation
3. Trump campaign–Russian meeting

There needs to be some serious merging. This is not helpful to our readers or to the integrity of this encyclopedia. Have we forgotten how to organize our articles? Please, please, please...let's get this problem resolved ASAP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The same information was in the article before and I remember adjusting it because it randomly decided to discuss the content of dossier in detail, then later it was removed completely, idk by who. Her connection or anything additional doesn't need to be in her minibio in this article. It's mentioned on her own biography article, but we trimmed down the details on all the participants(her, Manafort, Kushner, ect.), since this isn't where their individual history needs to be. From The Independent:Mr Kaysyv’s chief lawyer was Ms Veselnitskaya, and she and Prevezson retained a New York law firm, BakerHostetler, to help in defending Prevezson. BakerHostetler then hired investigators from Fusion GPS to help. Fusion GPS said it was retained specifically to work on an asset forfeiture issue in relation to the case. But Mr Browder claims they also helped Ms Veselnitskaya in her attempts to overturn the US Magnitsky Act. We are taking the fact she hired a NY law firm, which then hired investigators from Fusion, who later were accused of working with her. The information is in the Fusion article where it belongs. Fusion is mentioned in Veselnitskaya article, and it could be expanded but the allegations are mentioned in it. If someone wanted to argue it's inclusion here as a reaction by Trump's outside counsel, with him throwing the accusation out there, then in reactions with sourcing is where it would belong, but then we are back to what to include there. Cause if the White House, and Trump himself make one statement, and a member of his outside legal team makes an accusation, but not one coming from Trump, what value are we giving it.

Everything and anything that mentions the participants doesn't belong in this article about the meeting. These people mostly all have their own articles. You can't say everything people add into this article is relevant, and then proceed to use that as a reason to say it needs to be merged. I ask you to please keep the merge discussion in the merge discussion, and discussion about other issues in the relevant discussion when talking about other issues. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable. Removed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with everything stated above.

1. My very best wishes, please self-revert, as your action was based on unsupported claims to a consensus that has no supporting diffs.
2. WikiVirusC, please provide the diffs to the discussions that support your statement above, and/or that formed the consensus that disallowed inclusion of any mention to Veselnitskaya's connection to Fusion GPs, which is now included as a section in Fusion_GPS#Alleged_involvement_in_Veselnitskaya_meeting.
3. We have 4 stand alone articles (possibly more) on the same topic - a special counsel investigation into Russian interference with an election, including the 3 I listed above, the Fusion article, and this article. All should be condensed and included in a single primary article while this investigation is ongoing. Nothing has been proven, and the BLPs are all innocent until proven guilty.
4. If there is anyone confusion over how this should be handled, please refer to the Hillary Clinton and Obama articles because they reflect NPOV and the proper way to present allegations and scandals - and tell me where you find the information about The Clinton Global Initiative, or that any of these entities are still under investigation.
5. I'm of the mind that what is happening here needs closer review, but I haven't quite decided what venue to pursue. I know this article was created by a new editor and will check to see who created all the others, and how/why they made it into mainspace instead of being a section in the main article. Perhaps we need to decide which article will be the hub.
6. If a reader comes to WP looking for information on the Mueller investigation, they will get lost in the maze. I see no positive benefit to the project when that happens.

We have an unorganized mess on our hands, much of which is noncompliant with NOT, MOS, NPOV, BLP, and V. Spin-offs are justifiable when the main article is overflowing or the spin-off becomes too large to be included in the main - that has not happened. Splintered articles about the same topic are not helpful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not against including some additional info on this page if this is something relevant, such as the background of V. (she would never do anything without order from Moscow). However, that thing is indeed irrelevant. Here is the source. I doubt this should be included even on page Fusion GPS - she simply was one of the clients. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I understand your frustration, and I agree the current situation is not ideal - just because there is SO much information to be covered and some splintering was necessary. But if you are trying to say we should lump everything together into one massive article about the whole Russia-election-Trump associates-investigation thing, including all the details now in multiple articles - I don't think that's likely to be supported. I don't think readers are getting "lost in the maze". But that is what WILL happen if we try to include everything there is to say about (say) Veselnitskaya in the investigation article. We can't put everything into one article, it would be impossible to find anything. We do have an article now about the investigation (we needed one), and I have been working on moving information about the special counsel investigation from other articles to that article, and then pruning the information about the investigation way back in the original article. Hopefully we will eventually get the investigation material combined in that article (but without every single detail about every subject). There is still some question about whether this meeting subject deserves its own article (looks to me like consensus is going to be yes). I can think of others that could be merged, such as Comey memos and Dismissal of James Comey, but consensus was against that. IMO the ones you name are different enough to need their own focus - and with new information coming in all the time, they are going to grow. I would suggest we all try to keep information confined to the article it belongs in, with links to the others; news sometimes gets put in unrelated articles. I don't think a massive overhaul such as you suggest has any chance of happening. --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW I find it really unhelpful for you to throw around strings of acronyms like "NOT, MOS, NPOV, BLP, and V." Come on! There are no BLP violations or verifiability violations in one arrangement of the information compared to another, and NOT is simply a catchall link that doesn't give any clue what you are talking about. MOS items can be dealt with individually if you will point them out; same with POV problems. Let's just stay focused on how to edit the articles, preferably with as much focus and specificity as possible. --MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The only thing I find troubling right now is that there's already talk about kicking off a new merger discussion as soon as the current one closes. AfD, Merger, AfD Review, Rename, then another Merger?! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

2. This is the diff[17], when I reworded the content, and moved where it was located. This is the diff when it was removed completely[18]. I don't see why I need evidence to back myself up to show I did what I said I did, but there it is. As for discussion on bios I started a discussion here. There have been other minor mentions of what to put in mini-bios versus their biography articles on this talk page (CTRL-F:bio). You won't find a discussion on every single possible detail that could be included in a bio. Fusion GPS is a separate article from this. What goes on in there is no concern to what goes on here. No article is dependent or based on what's in another article.

3. No one is being accused of a crime in this article, there is nothing in it that is alleged or that needs to be proven. There was a meeting, these are the people that were there, this is what they say happened at the meeting. If media or third parties throw out their accusations that's what they do, we aren't doing that here. A merge is a separate discussion its up here, but no one is being blpslandered.

4. Take it to those relevant articles. This talk page is for this article alone. Again I asked you to keep it to this discussion. Go use those talk pages please, or the Clinton or Obama WikiProject. From the talk of this Talk page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trump campaign–Russian meeting article.

5. AfD, Merge Discussion, Deletion Review

6. It's not a maze it's a web we WP:BUILD. If the article gets merged it gets merged, but until then so long as the investigation or wherever directly links back to this, it will not become a maze. All the participants most likely have a link here. The link is also in the DJT series infobox under Russian controversies, on every page relating to Trump. Everything is connected to everything else. WikiVirusC^(talk) 09:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm not just throwing policy around, and I would appreciate it if you would stop making that accusation. You've done it twice now. Please focus on where the real problems are with this article and the articles connected to it. You have also ignored the fact that my edits are constantly being reverted and there appears to be some tag-teaming going on as I mentioned above, which you have ignored but when an editor points out noncompliance, you object. You said nothing about the revert I mentioned above and the false consensus claim in the edit summary and when I ask for the diffs to support those claims, you pile on me accusing me of being frustrated and unhelpful? Let's move past that, and get right down to the point I've been trying to make about this mess and how we should correct it as I've demonstrated below:

1. Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Veselnitskaya meeting
2. Trump_campaign–Russian_meeting#Russian lobbyists Veselnitskaya meeting
3. Fusion_GPS#Alleged_involvement_in_Veselnitskaya_meeting
4. Links between Trump associates and Russian officials <---- A repeat of this article
5. Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Steele dossier
6. Donald Trump–Russia dossier
7. 2017 Special Counsel investigation - no mention of the June 2016 meeting, which is where it belongs.

Now let's take a look at what we should be modeling after because it does reflect NPOV, balance, and it's compliant with BLP which is what I'm trying to accomplish here. You said, We can't put everything into one article, it would be impossible to find anything. Ok, let's take a look at the following:

1. A list of redirects, not separate articles on each as what's being done here with 3 articles covering the Veselnitskaya meeting. NPOV? UNDUE? BLP?
2. Hillary Clinton email controversy - scroll down that page. Neat, compact sections with summaries of each controversy like what I'm suggesting we do here with a maximum 2 articles. Uhm, there's no mention of BleachBit having been used, or Blackberry's being destroyed. And another model that describes what you say can't be done is Clinton Foundation which is everything rolled into one neat package, including the Clinton Global Initiative which is a section in that article, not a stand alone. I guess those two articles support my suggestion, don't you think? That's what I've been saying to do here, and I don't see how you can exclude the destruction of evidence (the cell phones, iPads, hard drives, etc.) which was factual while you support the inclusion of speculation and allegations that lack evidence in the Trump articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that 2017 Special Counsel investigation made no reference to its sub-article. That's fixed now. Thank you for alerting us. Darmokand (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the removal of the "dossier" mention from this article. I see that at one point it even specified some of the "salacious allegations" which we have been very consistent about not mentioning at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and that's it? That's the only comment about having 3 to 4 articles repeating the same information? Interesting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Fusion GPS article

Expert eyeballs needed at Fusion GPS which currently has a substantial section entitled "Alleged involvement in Veselnitskaya meeting". Darmokand (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked at it and analyzed its sources. I concluded that the allegations are not verified - by which I mean it is not even verified that the allegations are being made - and I proposed deleting the whole section. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme has provided a verification, below, that the accusations are being made. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

An RfC should decide whether or not that is removed as it is sourced to RS. This pick and choose by a handful of editors has to stop. ^{Atsme📞📧}

You (and anyone else reading this) are welcome to comment at that article's talk page. If we did formal RfCs over every detail, the encyclopedia would grind to a halt. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't understand what you mean by "the allegations are not verified" considering a subpoena was issued to Fusion GPS cofounder for the very reason you stated as not being verified. In fact, all allegations in this article are "not verified" because there is no proof or evidence to support them - thus the ongoing investigation. The only thing that's verified are issuance of subpoenas, and requests to appear before the panel. If there was proof of criminal activity, that information would have already been presented as this fallacy has been under investigation for about 3 years now. You don't think it would have been presented during the campaign if it existed? This Russian fallacy is nothing more than an attempt to undermine a sitting President, and regardless of who is in office, such activity is an embarrassment to our entire country. Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner have been cooperating with the investigation, and providing all the documentation requested; however, Fusion GPS had to be subpoenaed. In fact, WaPo reported that both Donald Trump, Jr. and Paul Manafort agreed publicly through their attorneys, "to negotiate and provide the committee with documents and be interviewed by committee members and staff prior to a public hearing,”. Where is that information in this article? I just added and properly sourced the Fusion GPS subpoena both here and at the Fusion article because the subpoena satisfies V and is relevant to this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the subpoena was issued "regarding compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act." It's the reporter who is tying it to "accusations that the firm played a role in setting up a June 2016 meeting." However, since sources are doing that, it amounts to verification that the accusations are being made. IMO the reporters are falling for the rhetorical trick of mentioning several things in the same breath causing people to connect them. But if that's what the reporters are doing, that's what we have to report. So I'll strike my objection about verification. BTW, thank you for this: This Russian fallacy is nothing more than an attempt to undermine a sitting President. At least now we know where you are coming from and can interpret your comments accordingly. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

^{MelanieN, I just now read your comment and can't for the life of me understand what the hell you meant by it. Please explain. Atsme📞📧} 21:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

^{I'll strike the comment, since I should be talking here about content rather than other editors, and I'll reply at your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)}

Yeah from the source[19]: The firm, Fusion GPS, will be one subject of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next week that was planned well before the story broke of Trump Jr.’s June 2016 meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. From source [20] But Grassley and Feinstein did issue a subpoena Friday night for Glenn Simpson, the chief executive of Fusion GPS, a firm behind the production of a dossier.... Simpson was slated to appear on a panel with Manafort and Trump Jr. on Wednesday, but in a Friday letter from his lawyers, Simpson turned down the committee’s invitation, claiming Simpson could not attend “due to long held vacation plans.” Long story short, this hearing had been scheduled prior to anything about this meeting being publicly known, and before any allegations of Fusions involvement were made. They wanted Simpson to attend, but he declined, so they issued the subpoena to force him to show up. Grassley has been looking into Simpson/Fusion and its FARA compliance from as early as March[21]. Saying or implying that the committee or the subpoena was setup/issued as a result of this meeting, is very misleading. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll cite the other sources that directly connect. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post states: Regardless, senators on the committee may now use the FARA hearing to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government. See This article.

There is a difference between saying the hearing/subpoena was created as a result of the meeting, and saying that the committee may now use the hearing to ask about the meeting. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they want to question the link between Fusion GPS and Veselnitskaya, et al regarding this meeting. To do that, they issued a subpoena because he refused to attend the voluntary meeting claiming it interfered with his longtime "vacation" plans. I included what the source said using inline text attribution, and it is properly cited. In fact, I found this parts of which should also be used along with some other 3rd party opposition views to be compliant with NPOV and WEIGHT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they want to question the link between Fusion GPS and Veselnitskaya, et al regarding this meeting. I was tempted to add {{cn}} to "regarding this meeting". The source says they may use the hearing to ask about "Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government." See anything in there about this meeting? I don't. Much less about allegations that Fusion was somehow involved in setting it up. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your quote of:...considering a subpoena was issued to Fusion GPS cofounder for the very reason you stated[The allegations], is what I am referring to, not the quote in the article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The matter should be discussed at the appropriate article talk page, not here. But there's no way that this deserves a whole section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what we're doing - this is an appropriate article TP, and there may well be more since we have at least 3 articles for each event that occurs. Keep in mind, the meeting was the result of Trump Jr. conducting "opposition research" for the Trump campaign. Fusion GPS did opposition research on Trump which resulted in the discredited dossier. The inline text attribution in this article states (my bold): The committee wants to question Simpson about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which they can use "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to both the Trump campaign or the Russian government." What part of that is confusing? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Did you actually read the paragraph you deleted? You deleted the part about Browder's testimony, which was him saying that the lawyer was working on behalf of the Kremlin. Aside from that, you should probably discuss with other editors here whenever you're considering massive edits like that. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 08:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Fusion GPS stuff

Right now there's only a very indirect link between this meeting and Fusion GPS, basically a lobbyist version of six degrees of separation. When and if something comes off it it can be added in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Why should this tenuous link be treated differently than the tenuous link between Veselnitskaya and "the Kremlin"? — JFG ^talk 05:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Because of how it's covered in the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

VM, you need to stop reverting big blocks of text without consensus - that's twice now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if that's true, there is still a sentence in there in which Browder straight up claims that Veselnitskaya was representing the Kremlin. Even if the Fusion GPS content gets the boot from this page, the Browder content pertains to the Trump campaign-Russian meeting. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No disagreement with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate that. To me, that's the component that any side of a disagreement should agree on. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see: some unverified innuendo gets a pass because sources heavily pile on, but other unverified innuendo is excluded because sources only dig lightly into it. Feels like WP:JDLI territory. — JFG ^talk 08:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's WP:DUE territory. On one hand you have a passing mention which you have to stretch with some good ol' Wikipedia WP:SYNTH to relate the two things, on the other hands you have a dozen sources stating something explicitly. That's, like, the *opposite* of JDLI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Your removal of information that was added by other editors such as MelanieN here, myself, and DarthBotto [22], is disruptive as is your BRD behavior. Your refusal to gain consensus is making this article controversial when it shouldn't have to be. PLEASE STOP. You are not the final voice here. Other editors have been collaborating peacefully and productively but you appear to be at odds with what PAGs expect of us. It needs to stop so we can all work collaboratively. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, me and DB already agreed on the portion that they contributed. MelanieN only did some minor tweaks, so you can't pin it on her either. What's left is your, off-topic and POV, contribution [23]. It is up to you to get consensus for this stuff. And please, for the nth time, please stop calling my edits "disruptive". They're not and by this point your repeated claims along these lines are starting to amount to just plain ol' personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant, DB and I? 😂 Personal attacks...hmmmm...shall I provide some diffs? I wasn't trying to "pin it" on anyone - I was just trying to point out that if there had been an issue with what was included, MelanieN would have drawn attention to it, as she has throughout this article. For you to come in and just start deleting is disruptive. Think about it. I don't want to keep arguing with you VM, I'm weary of your behavior. Please try to collaborate in a productive way. Please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, until you are capable of engaging my comments and edits in good faith - without all these WP:ASPERSIONS about "disruptive" or the well-poisoning about "please try to collaborate productively" (insinuating that I'm not) - I'm not really sure if there's a point to this discussion. You can address the substance and content and we can have a discussion, or you can keep playing these rhetorical games and then ... well, nothing will change.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

AGAIN...you are not a solo voice here - consensus determines what should or should not be added, and even then, consensus may be challenged. You have your opinions, and I have my interpretations of PAGs. Why don't you at least try to understand that? At least wait until we have some PROOF to support all the allegations. In the interim, you can WP:DROPTHESTICK. GET CONSENSUS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And again I have to point out that it's up to you, who wishes to include this off topic material, to get consensus.

Wait. Why are you bringing up some "allegations" and "PROOF"? Did you forget that we're discussing a piece of text which you're trying to add? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm also unclear on why you bring up "DROPTHESTICK" since you're the one who can't let this go. Are you just randomly throwing up Wikipedia ALLCAPS pages? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree that most of that paragraph is unrelated to the topic of this article, and therefore it was good that it was removed. I also support DarthBotto's restoration of the relevant part. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)