Talk:2018 Russia–United States summit/Archive 1

Trump administration controversies
With a number of figures- politicians, newscasters and former agency heads alike- condemning the summit for Trump's behavior, this page merits the category Trump administration controversies, right? D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 18:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding it. This most definitely is a controversy. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Followup tweets
Trump then posted on Twitter on July 18, 2018:

Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia. They would rather go to war than see this. It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome! 18 Jul 2018

Believe me. True! Let us eat lettuce (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

International reaction
User:2600:1700:1111:5940:d9f6:63d1:857a:104 removed the description of negative reactions in many parts of the world, with the edit summary "Doesn't match source which says mixed reviews". Yes, the source does say “mixed reviews”, and mixed reviews were described in this article; positive and neutral reactions were included later in the same paragraph with the same source. For some reason the editor left those in, while deleting the negative ones. I propose to restore the deleted material, shown in bold: The hours immediately following the summit drew bipartisan criticism in the United States and in many parts of the world including Germany ("Europeans are really scared"), France, and the United Kingdom ("Putin's Poodle").

Alternatively, we could specify "mixed" and put both parts of the international reaction together; they are currently separated by a sentence explaining the reason for the bipartisan criticism. We could do something like this: The hours immediately following the summit drew bipartisan criticism in the United States. Criticism focused on Trump's apparent acceptance of Putin's denial of involvement in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, which contradicted the findings of the United States Intelligence Community, and stood in pointed contrast to the indictment of twelve Russian GRU agents just three days earlier in the ongoing Special Counsel investigation. International media reactions were mixed, being negative in most of Europe including Germany ("Europeans are really scared"), France, and the United Kingdom ("Putin's Poodle”), triumphant in Russia (“The West's attempts to isolate Russia failed”), and muted in China.

Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Huge sections missing
This article is only about Trump's "wouldn't" and a few pictures added for show.

This article needs major expansion, such as what the topics were. Believe me. Sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrich (talk • contribs) 05:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we knew what the topics were, we could discuss that. But the meeting was one-on-one, just the two of them. No agenda was announced, and no announcement about topics or agreements was made afterward. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know for official stenography to have been absent is unique in the annals of summitry. Presumably both interpreters were debriefed up the wazoo immediately afterwards by their respective governments, but as it is there's nothing to cross-reference. (Incidentally, who was Putin's interpreter?) kencf0618 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Followup section
Hello everyone,

In my opinion this portion in the 'Followup' section needs to be cut entirely because all points made are tangential to the sub-topic being explained:

"The American intelligence community has consistently concluded that Russia was exclusively responsible for the hacking. Dissenting analysis by members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) indicated "There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak — a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device." The reported data transfer rates of 22.7 megabytes per second exceed any ISP transfer rates available at that time. That interpretation has been disputed by several other digital forensics experts, including other members of VIPS who did not concur with the conclusions."

The first sentence has no reference and is a tangent. The next few lines about dissenting analysis and the disputed analysis of that are also tangential to the sub-topic.

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

do you support suppression of truth? this smells like cover-up... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there something you'd like to tell us about Seth Rich? soibangla (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

second summit
Should the title be changed to avoid potential confusion? Such as 2018 July Russia–United States summit ? X1\ (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Let's wait to see if the second summit actually takes place, and when. The Republicans are not happy with the notion of having Putin in the White House just before the midterm elections. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

“Trump reiterated his many past assertions that Russia may not have been the ONLY culprit”
“only” was removed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Russia–United_States_summit&diff=851394535&oldid=851391645

He has done this repeatedly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/19/heres-everything-trump-has-said-about-russian-interference-in-2016/

“The American intelligence community has consistently concluded that Russia was SOLELY responsible for the hacking.”

“solely” was removed. Can anyone show where the IC has ever blamed anyone else for the 2016 hacking? soibangla (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is, do the sources for this statement in the article say "many" and "only"? --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m happy to add the WaPo link for “many.” I think it’s up to others to show the IC blamed anyone else, as I’d have to prove a negative. soibangla (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need you to prove anything; that would be Original Research. We just need you to find a source that says the IC concluded that Russia was solely responsible. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * HAHAHA! Just absurd. Really. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html soibangla (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Calm yourself and discuss rationally, please. OK, I read the whole link. It says "Russia" over and over. It does not say anyone but Russia. So it implies but does not say "only" or "solely" responsible. On what basis are you adding "the IC has consistently concluded that Russia was SOLELY responsible for the hacking."? --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * After all that’s been written and said about this for nearly two years, is anyone actually challenging that abundantly evident reality? Is WP the Sean Hannity show now? HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To say that Russia is solely responsible rules out anyone else. Surely you would be able to find a source that backs up your claim if it's valid. If IC says "Russia did it", why can't we report that? Why must we say "Russia solely did it"? We need a source to say "Russia solely did it". starship.paint ~  KO   09:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Good points. To avoid OR we shouldn't add "solely" without good sourcing. As soibangla states above: "it’s up to others to show the IC blamed anyone else". We should just state that the Russians did it (lots of RS for that), and so far no RS say otherwise.

Soibangla, don't worry. We haven't lost our minds. We still realize that Trump is only a RS for the existence of his own statements, never for their veracity. There's a huge difference. When forced to make a choice between his statements and contrary statements by anyone else (like my cat), it's easy to decide which one is honest and believable, and it's almost never him. The only reason we ever quote him is because he's president and notable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Did Trump “stray” from his prepared statement?
Comment? soibangla (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Watch the video: he reads, strays offscript to say “could have been others,” then reads again. Read, stray, read.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=za3vVkRdfII

Has he done the same sort of thing “many” times before? Yep:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/19/heres-everything-trump-has-said-about-russian-interference-in-2016/

We can add that link as a ref for “many” if necessary. soibangla (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that isn't how I remembered it. Yes, he interrupts his prepared script. The problem with "strayed" is that it has a non-neutral connotation, as if we're implying that Trump has inability to focus. Maybe he does, but that isn't a point we need to make or even imply in this context. Something like "paused reading his prepared script to reiterate" just sounds more neutral. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please google "strayed from his prepared remarks" soibangla (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The first several hits aren't even about Trump. What's your point here? We have a mandate for neutrality. In any contentious topic (and anything about Trump tends to be divisive) it is imperative that we use neutral language. Wikipedia gets enough complaints about left-wing bias. The word is simply unnecessary when more neutral wording will suffice. I have corrected the statement to match what the video actually shows. It doesn't show "straying" as far as I can see. It shows him looking up from his script, interjecting a few words, and then continuing on. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is "strayed from his prepared statement/remarks" has been common, neutral journalistic phrasing since forever. soibangla (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-sequitur. My point is that, upon watching the video, it is pretty obvious he didn't "stray". He paused to interject something briefly, that's all. He didn't go off on a tangent, contradict his prepared remarks, veer off in another direction without returning, and so on. He just ad-libbed. "Stray" is simply false in this case. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a non sequitur, but congratulations, you have prevailed by exhausting your opponent rather than on merit. You're wrong, that's all. It is common, neutral usage that should have never been removed. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't follow that because other people strayed from their prepared speeches, that those situations automatically apply here. That's the very definition of a non-sequitur. Asserting "you're wrong" isn't an argument. The video is clear that using the word constitutes a factual error. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding "many". It's a subjective WP:WEASEL word, plain and simple. Just because a source uses it doesn't give us license to be as sloppy. The analyst who wrote that piece in the Washington Post clearly had an editorial point to make. That isn't what we do, unless we attribute it properly. In this Wikipedia article, the sentence works just as well without it. I see no justification for including it in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a case of sky-is-blue use of "many", and thus not a weasel word? It's certainly accurate, doesn't need attribution, and our content would be less accurate without it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Other words like "reiterated" and plural "assertions" already imply multiple instances. "Many" is subjective, and inaccurate. How many is "many"? The fact that the source chooses to use sloppy wording is irrelevant to our editorial guidelines, it doesn't mean we use it also. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The WaPo author documented "many" instances. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Many" according to them? Again, you haven't made a case that we need to contravene Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. You can use the word "many" if you attribute it properly in a quotation, but not as a weasel word in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they called it "many." They enumerated the instances which any reasonable reader would conclude constitutes "many." soibangla (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

so shall we consider publishing the truth??
I like the current vibe of the article. can we focus on the facts???Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Truth™? PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTRUTH applies here. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Kristallnacht? Really?
I removed the following sentence from the paragraph headed "Major television broadcast news media presented criticism of Trump and the summit.": On MSNBC, commentator Jill Wine-Banks said that the Russian meddling attempts were as serious to her "as the Cuban Missile Crisis...or the 9/11 attack" and further stated that the summit will "live in infamy as much as" the Attack on Pearl Harbor or Kristallnacht. My edit summary was removing Jill Wine-Banks comment: it is way over the top, outside of the mainstream; and MSNBC is not "major television broadcast news" . User:Let us eat lettuce restored it with the edit summary this is the rhetoric needed to be documented in full capability…. Let’s discuss whether this should be in the article or not. My feeling is that we should be using quotes that illustrate a mainstream or typical reaction - rather than the most extreme and outrageous quotes we can find. This comment, with its comparisons to Pearl Harbor and Kristallnacht for heavens sake, is way too extreme to include here IMO - unless we are actively trying to feature the most extreme quotes we can find. (And the Kristallnacht reference, besides trivializing the Holocaust, gets into Godwin's Law territory, which I would rather avoid in this article.) Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The view may be extreme, and coming from some minor functionary or pundit, I'd say remove it. On the other hand, the words of Jill Wine-Banks carry more weight; considering her background and professional experience, she seems qualified to have an opinion. On the gripping hand, the article's quality isn't lessened by removing it, and if no other news service has mentioned it, then it should be removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * MSNBC is mainstream, and Rachel is the top rated show.
 * MSNBC is a cable channel; it's not "broadcast news media" as in the intro to this paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Krystalnacht might be extreme, but others also compare Helsinki to Pearl Harbor.
 * Not in our article, they don't. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just sayin'... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it is over the top by a marginally notable figure. A good example of Godwin's law. PackMecEng (talk)
 * Somebody could add this to the Jill Wine-Banks article if they want. IMO it says more about her than it does about the summit. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really know where that statement would fit in the Jill Wine-Banks article, so I mentioned it on the talk page instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of opinions (discussion is above)

 * Remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that RS coverage has been found. (Original vote was: Remove if this got coverage only by the originating source). ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Newsweek is a better source. She is first describing the election interference attack. It is indeed the most serious attack on our national security since Pearl Harbor. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it. This is a well-sourced comment from a person who is highly relevant to Trump-Russia matters. Our job is to determine (1) that the content in question is relevant and (2) that it is reliably sourced.  How strongly she phrased her opinion is not relevant unless it is clearly offensive, which it is not.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove: Wikipedia is not a collection of pundits' opinions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: As long as the paragraph is balanced, which it is now, rather than a partisan hack job, as it originally was. soibangla (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep this is the rhetoric needed to be documented in full capability… Let us eat lettuce (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Reactions
This is a report of Obama being exposed by a professor attempting a thinly vieled attempt at putting both the President and Putin down:

During a speech in Johannesburg, South Africa, on July 17, 2018, former Democrat president Barack Obama criticized Trump without mentioning him by name or the US-Russia summit. Obama warned that "strongman politics" are on the rise and that "those in power seek to undermine every institution." The “politics of fear, resentment, retrenchment” are moving “at a pace unimaginable just a few years ago,” Obama added. John Stremlau, professor of international relations at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg stated, “Just by standing on the stage honoring Nelson Mandela, Obama is delivering a rebuke to Trump.” He called the timing of Obama’s speech auspicious — just one day after Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He continued, “Yesterday, we had Trump and Putin standing together; now we are seeing the opposing team: Obama and Mandela.” Stremlau, who was in attendance, described the speech as “a tough, strong condemnation of Trump and all that he stands for.”   Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that Obama has done this before, his 17 July speech was coincidental to the summit and he never mentioned the summit, so it has no relevance to this article, which is not yet another place to bash Obama


 * 26 May 2017: Barack Obama issues thinly veiled attack on Donald Trump: 'We can't hide behind a wall'


 * 20 October 2017: Former Presidents Barack Obama and George W Bush have voiced concern about the current political climate in the US, in comments seen as a veiled rebuke of Donald Trump's leadership


 * PS — I hear Saint Petersburg is wonderful this time of year. Enjoy, comrade! soibangla (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Weak Guardian article
This article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/17/helsinki-summit-what-did-trump-and-putin-agree

included in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Russia%E2%80%93United_States_summit#Topics_discussed

does not appear particularly persuasive in describing mutual agreement of what was discussed in the private meeting

It seems to be a mishmash of Putin's assertions of what was discussed, Trump's statements in the presser and some informed speculation derived from historical information. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's weak because the sources are weak. The Americans aren't talking. White House staff, and even military and security officials, haven't been briefed. Basically the administration has no idea what was discussed or decided, except what they might have gleaned from the translator. The Guardian article made a valiant attempt at summarizing what has been said (most by the Russians) about the meeting. Along with the "we don't know about that" responses from the Americans. IMO it is better than the complete silence on the issues this article has had up to now. Additional references, if there are any, would be welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we have this info in the article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We do mention that he called for the Crimean referendum to be accepted. We don't currently have this is the article. Feel free to mention it if it can be done briefly. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Soibangla: In the sentence In a Fox News interview the next day, Putin indicated that the two had agreed to disagree about Crimea - the primary reason for many of the sanctions in effect against Russia., you removed “ - the primary reason for many of the sanctions in effect against Russia” with the edit summary “a dubious assertion from a dubious Guardian article”. This is hardly a “dubious assertion”; see for example International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis. Anyhow, the source clearly states “The single greatest barrier to sanctions being lifted remains the Russian annexation of Crimea”. You have not gotten any consensus or agreement with your assertion that the Guardian article is somehow not a Reliable Source. The Guardian is a well established and respected paper, and the fact that you DONTLIKE this particular article is not a reason for deleting information sourced to it. I intend to restore that phrase but I wanted to come here first to find out if anyone else agrees that “dubious article” (from a Reliable Source) is a valid reason for deleting stuff. If not, I request you to stop doing that. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have presented this article as purporting to report what was discussed in the private meeting. Even a cursory reading of the article shows that it does not. It is a deeply flawed source for this section. I have no problem with The Guardian, but no source bats 1000, and in this case the writer took some liberties and reached.soibangla (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The Guardian article does not pretend to know what was discussed in the private meeting, and neither do we. As any Reliable Source report would do, it specifies the source of whatever it is reporting - press conference, Fox news interview, military spokesman announcement, etc. In that respect it is no different from any other news report. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If "The Guardian article does not pretend to know what was discussed in the private meeting," then why is it your sole source? It should not be used for this section. "It seems to be a mishmash of Putin's assertions of what was discussed, Trump's statements in the presser and some informed speculation derived from historical information." soibangla (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it actually isn’t the sole source, and it’s only cited twice. There are actually five sources for that paragraph (not counting the ones about Congress) - two from WaPo and one each from AP News, the Guardian, and CNN. And I can add more sources if that is your problem. I could add CBS News or Bloomberg or The Hill. But they don’t have anything new to say. Most sources say that details are scarce and are mostly coming from the Russians, since the Americans have said next to nothing except for what Trump said in the presser. It appears that even White House staff and cabinet members haven’t been briefed on what went on. The Guardian article is valuable because it is the only one that tried to pull together a coherent narrative based on various sources. I don't know why you call it a "mishmash" - it was actually a fine piece of reporting, a valiant attempt at pulling the information from various sources together. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "it is the only one that tried to pull together a coherent narrative based on various sources" You are reinforcing my point: "It seems to be a mishmash of Putin's assertions of what was discussed, Trump's statements in the presser and some informed speculation derived from historical information." But it is not a read-out of what was actually discussed in the private meeting, yet you are heavily relying on it here. In a vacuum of information, the writer is attempting to fill that vacuum, but he doesn't actually know any better than anyone else, so he's engaged largely in informed speculation. The article may be useful in other contexts, but not in this one. soibangla (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt if anyone else here could read that carefully sourced article and dismiss it as a "mishmash" of "informed speculation". He is not relying on informed speculation, he is relying on REPORTING. Apparently you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that point. Anyhow, I'm not "heavily relying" on that article; as I already pointed out, it is used for only two citations and most of the paragraph is sourced to other articles. And of course it's not a "read-out of what was actually discussed." As I pointed out, and as everyone knows, we have no readout of what was actually discussed in that meeting, and probably never will - unless Putin releases his tape of it. (kidding, mostly) But the article desperately needs some kind of discussion about what happened, and this paragraph summarizes what has been said about it - in all cases pointing out who said it. That's how reporting works, and that's how encyclopedias work. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "But the article desperately needs some kind of discussion about what happened" — I was gonna say in my previous comment that we shouldn't be hasty to reach for content here simply because there's a gaping void, so I'll say that now. The reality is that we're almost entirely in the dark, and unless/until some light shines in, we should just acknowledge that, noting that it's virtually unprecedented. So, we just disagree here, and I'm movin' on. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)