Talk:Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation

Proposed move
The normal way to title a lawsuit is to name the first-listed defendant in full, and then to add "et al." if the context requires it. I suggest that this article be moved to Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation. That's where anyone looking at the Complaint would look for it. Also, the present title is misleading because Donald J. Trump has not been sued individually, although his camapaign and his son have been. After the move there would of course be redirects, from this title, from "DNC collusion lawsuit", and from any other plausible search term. JamesMLane t c 17:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Wikipedia follows bluebook convensions; see Manual_of_Style/Legal; I don't see a reason to add one extra "the" in the title. -- Kendrick7talk 08:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Russian interference" is an allegation
Russian interference is one of the allegations of the lawsuit. Isn't it WP practice not to state allegations in lawsuits as fact? At best, it is confusing. Keith McClary (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The evidence is so strong for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that we no longer require sourcing to make the statement in Wikipedia's voice. That article contains the necessary sourcing to show that it is a proven allegation.
 * It's sort of like stating that an apple will fall when dropped. The evidence for the theory of gravity is so strong that we no longer have to state "it is alleged that an apple will fall when dropped". We can just say "an apple will fall when dropped." It's really a relief to keep obvious things simple. Only conspiracy theorists, consumers of unreliable sources, and Russian agents and their ilk (like Fox News and Trump and Co.) who insist that it's an unproven allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a wee bit of difference between Wikipedia RS and evidence admissible in court. IANAL, but I can't see how the intelligence assessment could be introduced as evidence without someone being sworn in to explain it and answer questions about the methodology. I think you'll find that RS will say "alleged" when covering the court case. Keith McClary (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Our standard is RS, not a court case. There are enough major RS which provide convincing evidence of the truth of the allegation that we now accept it as fact. It's true that journalistic habit is to often continue to say "alleged", long after something is proven, but we do not follow that norm here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also note that sources which openly sow doubt on the conclusions of the intelligence community on this matter are invariably sources we do not consider reliable here.
 * And just to muck with your mind, why do we still allow Fox News to be considered a RS for US politics? Really? (Cowardice)
 * Discerning editors use better and much more reliable sources whenever it spouts GOP talking points and propaganda that is obviously not fact checked. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hearing on the defendants' motions

 * The main article says:
 * "A hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss is scheduled for May 17, 2018."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Civil_DNC_lawsuit_against_Russian_Federation
 * Shouldn't that be included here? Keith McClary (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)