Talk:Russian collusion

Redirect direction
user:Soibangla Putting aside any previous edits, can we agree that "contact" does not mean "collusion", and therefore it is not adequate to make this redirect to the page Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Second of all, when people talk about "Russian collusion", the discussion usually in the context of the Mueller report. Therefore, This page should redirect to the findings of the Mueller report. Mottezen (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article should redirect, not what is technically "collusion", but to what the average person means when they talk about "Russian collusion", which is usually real or alleged connections between the Trump administration and Russian government. Feel free to tag with R from non-neutral name. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, when "the average person" talk about "Russia collusion", they do not mean the "contacts", but something more akin to a nefarious conspiracy or coordination. It is, after all, the definition in most dictionaries. Mottezen (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The dictionary definition of "collusion" doesn't answer the question of what people are looking for when they search "Russian collusion" on Wikipedia. If they wanted the Mueller report, they would search "Mueller report". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that people are looking for the "links" between Trump and Russia when they search "Russian collusion". I think they are looking for a "conspiracy" between Trump and Russia, which was investigated by Mueller. Trying to understand: what makes you think that they are looking for the links?Mottezen (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Mueller report was not the only investigation. There was also the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee investigation which went on much longer, and reached additional findings Mueller did not, such as that Kilimnik was not simply suspected of links to Russian intelligence, but was actually a Russian intelligence officer, and this is covered in the “Links” article. By redirecting to the Mueller report, the Senate Intel investigation and the full scope of findings is sidestepped soibangla (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and this is the only such "additional findings" of this report discussed in the links article, and it's kind of buried. This July 2020 report does not mention "collusion". Kilimnik being an intelligence officer doesn't change anything from the Trump's campaign point of view because they probably didn't know about it, him being a spy and stuff. Honestly, this redirect should point directly to the findings of the main investigation on this. Mottezen (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort didn’t know who Kilimnik was when he gave him internal polling data that could be used for voter targeting? I suggest you research their history. The redirect should remain as is to ensure it encompasses all investigations. soibangla (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said, just that he probably didn't know he was a spy because spies don't say they're spies, duh. Mottezen (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The "link" article doesn't delve deep enough in the topic of "collusion" or "conspiracy" and only marginally mentions the senate intelligence committee investigation. Meanwhile, the section "conspiracy and cooperation" on the Mueller report article explicitly discusses the concept of "collusion" and why it was not the concept Mueller used for his investigation in the first paragraph. Mottezen (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You clearly did not have consensus for this change. You're not making it easy to AGF. soibangla (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe users here stopped responding because they stopped caring or have been swayed by my arguments. I couldn't know for sure without making the change. Do we need an RfC? Mottezen (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Gosh, it's been nearly two days since you started this, one of which is a weekend day. Almost two whole days! Clearly this needs to go straight to the Supreme Court immediately. soibangla (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we're 3 users in a talk page of a redirect. The people opposed to the change don't bring up any new arguments to counter my points about meaning of "collusion" and how it's discussed and defined more properly in the section I want to redirect it to. If there is still disagreements, isn't this the cue to bring new eyes to the project? Mottezen (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * People do not respond when your view has been decisively rebutted and you continue to repeat your invalid equivocations. SPECIFICO talk 06:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this would have been an acceptable behavior is any of the arguments I bought forward had actually been addressed. Mottezen (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)