Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 11

Goodin redux
In the Ars Technica source being debated above, Goodin makes two interesting observations. One is that the government's report on the North Korea Sony hacks was criticized on the same grounds, and two, that it was "likely" that the reason the report was light on evidence was because the intelligence community doesn't want to teach the Russians how to evade detection. Last two paragraphs. So it's not an accurate representation of the source to throw in a quote from Goodin that says "no evidence!" and leave it at that. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are going to include Goodin's analysis (and so far, there is no consensus to do so), we should summarize his key points rather than quote the entire lede.- MrX 01:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to include, of course. But Undue isn't the only issue with the current version. Geogene (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly.- MrX 01:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, so why is this being added back in? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously because of our policy that says that content cant't be removed unless there is consensus to remove it.- MrX 12:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've copy edited the material to properly summarize the source. That should not be interpreted as an endorsement for keeping any of the Goodin material per my previous comments.- MrX 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a better summary of the source. It took one very minor element of Goodin's article, and then prefaced it with a suggestive wording that's not at all appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article ("while acknowledging that ..." suggests that what follows is true, even though we don't know if it is). I've restored the previous summary of Goodin's article. The above discussion suggests that there is overall support for quoting Goodin's article. Before changing this passage (and I don't see why it should be changed), propose the changes you'd like to make, and see if there's consensus for them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the "above discussion" DOES NOT "suggests that there is overall support for quoting Goodin's article." There are strong objections. It's still UNDUE and should be minimized or removed altogether. SPECIFICO is correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It does show the majority favor inclusion. Discussion has slowed with no new arguments or editors since the 10th (I believe.) We can revisit this if new information comes to light or, if an editor feels strongly they can start an RfC. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion. For the record, I'm also opposed to including it per the arguments above. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There are "strong objections" to nearly every aspect of this article, but that doesn't mean that us editors with strong objections get to blockade everything. The strong objections to including Goodin's article on the JAR have been noted, but a majority of editors thought it merited inclusion.
 * The above discussion showed a majority for inclusion, and the arguments against inclusion were simply weak. I asked several times to support their claim that Goodin's analysis of the JAR has been contradicted by later reporting, but  was never able to provide any sources to back up that claim. A number of other arguments were tried, like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, but the JAR is an important part of this story, so expert reaction to it is eminently WP:DUE, and the reactions that Goodin goes over are anything but WP:FRINGE. They were the mainstream reaction among experts to the JAR. The arguments fell flat, and a majority of editors favored inclusion. That should be good enough for inclusion.
 * Just generally, I don't understand why there's such opposition to including a short journalistic summary of expert reactions to the JAR. This is a very small addition of a larger article, and the addition reflects a completely mainstream analysis, so I don't understand how one can object so strongly to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There having been no demonstrated consensus to include the Goodin bit, I have removed it from the article and I have requested a close to this discussion at AN so that we can move forward with other matters. SPECIFICO talk  19:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a majority in favor of inclusion. Unless you have some substantive objections that outweigh the majority opinion of editors, the material belongs in the article, and its removal is inappropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials
Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials

This should be its own separate article.

And then most important bits as WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, back here. Sagecandor (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. This looks like an easy split, and would cut one of the longest chapters of this article. — JFG talk 19:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Nice haircut here, and full details in Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. — JFG talk 22:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

What to call the new article
Presumably the discussion about what to call this thing should be carried out at Talk:Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, if that's still its name. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

2016 Trump campaign ties to Russian officials
2016 Trump campaign ties to Russian officials

New article.

Per multiple talk page suggestions, above.

Please trim that section of this article, and use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE back here, instead. Sagecandor (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now at 2016 Trump campaign ties to Russian officials. Sagecandor (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe title of page might change to encompass more than just the campaign itself. Sagecandor (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you like to redirect it to Allegations of 2016 Trump campaign ties to Russian officials?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do it now. Thank you for to make recommendations for to having of link. Sagecandor (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is now titled Links between Trump associates and Russian officials; Sagecandor and I both created a fork but we eventually agreed to merge them. — JFG talk 22:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That article is now listed as a candidate for deletion. FallingGravity 04:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

WHACK!
Whack!

This was very much uncool. Whatever happened to consensus and process? Last I saw we were talking about trimming a little of the fat from this article. Then at 19:18 Sagecandor suggested splitting out "Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials", JFB liked the idea, and wham! without any further discussion or input or even coordination between the two of you, you EACH created an article, which then had to be merged. It was done by 21:48, a bare 2 1/2 hours from the first suggestion. During that brief time window Zigzig (the only person who had time to comment) opposed and reminded you of the need for consensus, which you ignored. I would have opposed if you had given it any time at all for discussion. Many other people would have had suggestions or improvements if you hadn't gone off half cocked. You did this before anyone had a chance to weigh in on whether it was a good idea or what should be included. You created it without any discussion of the title, meaning it has been moved several times already and will be moved half a dozen times move before it finally gets a stable, consensus title. This was BAD FORM, totally unWikipedian, and the slipshod, do-it-over-half-a-dozen times result shows it. To both of you: don't ever ride roughshod over the community like that again. Seriously.

There, now that you have been properly trouted, let's get down to the business of fixing it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Trout accepted! However I consider my actions a WP:BOLD move, and apparently Sagecandor reached the same conclusion. This section was the most bloated after the Comey stories that you handled. Note that didn't oppose to forking out this section, rather he opposed spinning out "commentary and reactions" and I didn't touch that. Regarding consensus, several people had expressed support for de-bloating this section:,  and yours truly. When it was done, Zigzig20s commented with an alternate title but didn't object to the fork. All in all, I think we're better off now. Entries for each suspected individual have been trimmed to the essential facts without much of the "he said-she-said" chatter, but full contents have been WP:PRESERVED in the new article. What else do you feel needs fixing?
 * To your concern that there are too many articles about each daily headline, I very much agree and I sent quite a few to AfD already. The article we just created will be a natural recipient for the incoming headlines about any connected person suspected of anything, so we can point people there when they create news-story-of-the-day articles. — JFG talk 01:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Being bold, in the absence of any discussion or controversy, is one thing. Being bold, in ignoring an ongoing discussion and abruptly implementing a completely new and undiscussed major change, is something else. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the prior talk page comments about bloat, by those including Thucydides411, Slatersteven , BullRangifer , SPECIFICO , and JFG . I'm thankful to JFG for the helpful explanation and the bold action to create the sub article , which can be WP:PRESERVED, back at this page. Sagecandor (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is there still so much about links in this article?
I'm puzzled. I thought the whole idea of spinning off the new article was to reduce the size of this one. Why, then, are there still multi-paragraph sections about each of the various people and their contacts with Russia? Will it be OK with people if I, and others, reduce those sections to few summary sentences, since the main information is now in another article? And please, to avoid another TROUT situation, let's get consensus to do that before we actually do it. I think we should wait at least 24 hours for people to comment. Personally I favor a major trim - I'm talking 50% to 80% of the information. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have one section with signal sentence summaries.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Few summary sentences sounds good. Sagecandor (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is more material being added, we should be reducing it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "More material being added"? Do you mean that I expanded a sentence, which incorrectly named only the FBI as having been asked to push back with public statements, so as to mention the other agencies that were approached, and added an additional reference? Or are there other, more substantial additions you are talking about? --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which added over 500 characters, so yes it was an addition, not just a slight rewording.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, it was an addition. And now someone has added the new information about Russia's denials. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think anyone has interpreted "this article is too big, we should reduce it" to mean "and we should have a moratorium on adding anything to the article." --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It just seems odd to argue that we should reduce the size of this section (I agree) and then expand it. We should not be adding material but discussing what we can take away (and I think much of this added material of yours falls into the category of "better off in the other article". We do not need to know here who said what or did what with relation to every allegation. This is what the other article is for.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this material needs to be substantiallly trimmed. Some of the main actors like Flynn, Kushner and Sessions could be summarized in two to three sentences each. The others could be reduced even more. The Steele dossier doesn't really belong in that section, if in the article at all.- MrX 18:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As an example

"The Russian Ambassador had met several Trump campaign members and administration nominees; Trump's team has issued a number of denials and justifications concerning these meetings, several of these denials turned out to be false. In the early months of 2017, the Trump administration was accused of asking senior government officials to publicly dispute the news reports about contacts between Trump associates and Russia."

Much shorter, and still contains the gist of the story.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we are talking about trimming here. IMO this suggestion trims out too much detail, but that's what discussion is for. One point: before we trim major detail, we should make sure it is included in the other article. Also: when trimming prose, we should be careful to retain necessary supporting references. And of course, to make sure that our trimming is NPOV, not aimed at either "getting rid of the stuff that makes Trump look bad" or "getting rid of the stuff that makes Trump look good." --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @Slatersteven: It's a bit vague, no? We at least need to mention the name of the person with the connection. For example, the Eric Prince section is about right, although it doesn't need to be in its own section. For Carter Page, I would propose something like this:
 * "Carter Page's communications were monitored by the FBI under a FISA warrant during the summer of 2016, after he was suspected to act as an agent of a foreign power (Russia). Page met Kislyak during the 2016 Republican National Convention, and in 2013 met with Viktor Podobnyy, who was later charged with spying."
 * - MrX 18:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No i do not think it is too vague, it is only really a headline to draw attention to material that should be covered in greater detail in the other article. Nor do I think we need names for every sentence, again all we really should do is just have a brief section alleged collusion, hell I am not even sure we need more then one paragraph about that, an overview.Slatersteven (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with reducing this to one paragraph per involved person. Maybe make an exception and keep a dedicated subsection for Michael Flynn as there seems to be more substance and more scrutiny in his case, plus he was indeed fired over a conversation with the ambassador. — JFG talk 19:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that some entries were shortened to one paragraph; I shortened the remaining ones and grouped them under a section "Other Trump associates", keeping the Flynn case as most prominent. — JFG talk 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede sentence
The section above is about the scope of the article, which I don't think was at all what was intended with the recent (now reverted) addition of a lede paragraph to the article. Letting that discussion about the scope of the article go on (as far as I am concerned the scope of the article is fine as it is), I would like to work together to come up with a proper lede sentence, Wikipedia-style, explaining what the article is about - rather than simply jumping in with the story without any introduction. Anyone have any idea how to do that? --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of brainstorming, here is a proposal to get the discussion moving.


 * Version 1. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was discovered by U.S. Intelligence agencies, resulting in further investigations by the FBI and the U.S Congress into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.
 * - MrX 00:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good start. The first sentence should mention  the unanimous high confidence conclusion of the entire United States Intelligence Community that Russia interfered in the 2016 United States elections. Sagecandor (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need that detail in the first sentence, but do you have a proposal for how that might be worded?- MrX 00:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It was actually "discovered" by the DNC or its consultants at Crowdstrike. TFD (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a fair observation.- MrX 11:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's even worse that what is there now. We should very definitely NOT privilege the opinions of the intelligence agencies (as we do now and as people seem to be suggesting above) and should certainly not say they "discovered" interference as if it is a given fact. As has been pointed out, the lead sentence needs to explain broadly what the topic is, not simply highlight one aspect of it or one published claim by one set of actors about it. The point is there are allegations of interference, with dispute as to whether it happened and to what extent, and whether the Trump campaign was complicit, and ongoing investigations into all those things.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest something like, very broadly:
 * "Allegations that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election are currently being investigated by [the FBI, congressional committees etc]. Russia has been accused of undertaking cyberattacks, disseminating fake news, making inappropriate contact with members of Trump's campaign team [and ....] in a bid to influence the result of the election in Trump's favour."
 * That sets out what this is actually about and what Russia is alleged to have done, and actually defines the topic – as any normal WP intro should – rather than just launching straight into telling us what the US intelligence agencies happen to have said about whether this as-yet undefined thing happened. That can come in the second paragraph, which can also do more chronology as to how the story unfolded (which is slightly jumbled and repetitive as it stands).  N-HH   talk / edits  09:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. We're way past the alleged stage. You may want to review other discussion on this page where 'alleged' was firmly rejected and the accompanying source analysis. Also, Russia didn't attempt to interfere. They actually interfered.- MrX 11:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need to review them, I participated in some of those discussions. As I pointed out then, something can be "concluded" by one party but remain an "allegation". As others pointed out, probably most of the media, especially those removed from the partisan frenzy surrounding this topic in the US, continue to report these as "allegations". Yes some people denied that, but I can't do anything about wilful blindness. You can be as sure as you like personally about exactly what happened, but that doesn't matter. Anyway, exact phrasing is obviously open to debate, but what about the more fundamental point in my suggestion that a WP page should actually define what it is talking about first?  N-HH   talk / edits  13:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please watch terms like willful blindness. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss for any other explanation, but happy to accept one.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I already responded in the relevant discussion. Not doing it again here. Objective3000 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as I can tell, you didn't actually make a substantive comment in this discussion, where the sources were discussed in depth. Also my point is that the justifications people purported to give for rejecting the research there didn't stand up, so there must be something else behind it.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr. X's version is good. 1. Sentence starts with the subject of the the article. 2. It completely captures the scope of the article. 3. The word discovered is neutral. Casprings (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up. 1) US intelligence assessments about this are not the subject of the article. 2) It "captures the scope", even though it fails to define the alleged interference or explain what it supposedly consisted of? 3) "Discovered" is neutral?  N-HH   talk / edits  13:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't give up. 1) The sentences that I proposed do not establish the intelligence assessments as the subject, they merely establish a major milestone in the overall event. 2) The first sentence cannot possibly detail all of the complex elements of the interference. 3) "Discovered" is not really non-neutral, but it is inaccurate as pointed out by .- MrX 14:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Here is another proposal, primarily to address TFD's concerns:
 * Version 2. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was documented by three U.S. Intelligence agencies, spawning further investigations by the FBI and the U.S Congress into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.
 * - MrX 14:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Documented" is another can of worms for the deniers, because the intelligence determination was not publicly "documented" to various pundits' satisfaction. This will give rise to another round of tail-chasing which essentially disregards RS accounts in favor of memes about WMD, etc. I understand why you propose to start with the bolded title of the article, but I don't think this is a subject like Graperfruit or even Grape-nuts or Great Dane where that format works for the lede.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Determined" or "identified" could work as alternatives for "documented". We don't have to include the title in the lead sentence, but I struggle with how to summarize the scope of the article without including "election interference by Russia" in some form.- MrX 14:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "determined" is actually what they did. It's rich in meaning in the sense of accumulating and evaluating a sufficient amount of data such that no other conclusion was possible. I don't like "election interference" because it is passive and, whether by the dictionary or its sense in common usages, suggests a conclusion that is less determinate.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the passive voice. How about:
 * I think version "1" by MrX is fine if to replace "was discovered" by "was investigated", i.e something like Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was investigated by U.S. Intelligence agencies, the FBI and the U.S Congress ... My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good proposals overall. Option 2 is more accurate than option 1; I would support that. I would also suggest to replace "2016 United States elections" with "2016 United States presidential election" which is the actual scope mentioned in intelligence reports and which gathered 99% of the RS coverage. The only non-presidential thing that was cited is usage of some leaked DNC documents by Republicans in Florida, something they would do regardless of the leak source. — JFG talk 16:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Version 3. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections, documented by three U.S. Intelligence agencies, spawned investigations by both the FBI and the U.S Congress into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials. Casprings (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is better.- MrX 18:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I am thinking about it, let's bring down the words some:

Version 3a. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections, documented by U.S. Intelligence agencies, spawned FBI and Congressional investigations into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.

Just another thought.Casprings (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Version 4. Better yet with two sentences:
 * — JFG talk 19:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of the first words of the article being the title and written in active voice. Also, keeping this discussion to one sentence might be worthwhile.. It forces you to craft a sentence about the article that is short and captures the essence of the article. Clearly we can have another sentence, but agreement on one sentence to start out on might be a worthwhile exercise. Just my thought.Casprings (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I support 's wording proposal, per the treatment of the subject by reliable sources like the BBC and Reuters, as very clearly shown above. I'm curious what your opinion of that proposal is. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To make N-HH's proposal more concrete,
 * -Darouet (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this have to be added to every section of this page? Is nothing ever settled? Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this have to be added to every section of this page? Is nothing ever settled? Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to incorporate all of the comments here in an edit of the first paragraph of the article. SPECIFICO talk  18:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted. It was inappropriate for you to insert your own, undiscussed version into the article while discussion is still ongoing here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not always the practice here, but you might at least have copied it here if you prefer that process. SPECIFICO  talk  18:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My reaction: I see merit in parts of several of the proposals. How about combining aspects of several of them? I do like the first words of the lede to be the title, although that isn't always a requirement. I don't want "allegations" in the first sentence, we have long since reached consensus that these reports are more definitive than "allegations". I don't think really we can keep it to a single sentence. I like N-HH's second sentence. I like Capsprings third sentence (except I would say investigating "the possibility of" collusion rather than "suspected" collusion, which is a little stronger than the current state of knowledge). Let's see if I can combine several of these proposals. Call it version 5.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we please have the first sentence not be passive voice? Casprings (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I'm not a fan of the passive myself, but in this case I thought it made the sentence more understandable. Open for discussion, of course. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption personally ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to denigrate and harm Hillary Clinton and to promote the candidacy of Donald Trump.[1][2][3] The U.S. Director of National Intelligence released a declassified version of a highly classified report which stated, with “high confidence”, that Russia had used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media trolls in an effort to give an advantage to Trump over Clinton.[4] These conclusions were reaffirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017.[5] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe later stated that they had found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015.[6]
 * SPECIFICO talk  18:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are going to start off with the bolded title in the lede, then the first sentence would best contain a definition rather than a statement about the subject. SPECIFICO  talk  18:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am good with that, but the second sentence should be about the ongoing FBI and congressional investigations. That is really the most important thing about the subject.Casprings (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec x2) OK, now it is here and we can discuss it. Call this option 6. My own preference is for option 5 at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: this is basically the same as the existing lede paragraph, except that the lede sentence has been modified to define the subject matter. Correct? --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I was surprised you reverted it. I do agree with you and others however that there should also be a sentence about the ongoing investigations by various agencies. SPECIFICO  talk  19:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption personally ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to promote the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump and to harm Hillary Clinton.[1][2][3] In December 2016, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence released a declassified version of a highly classified report which stated, with “high confidence”, that Russia had used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media trolls in an effort to give an advantage to Trump over Clinton.[4] These conclusions were reaffirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017.[5] Several European nations and Australia had shared intelligence information relating to communications between Trump's senior advisers and suspected Russian agents as early as 2015.[6] A Special Counsel and several U.S. Congressional committees are investigating the Russian interference and the possibility that there was collusion between Trump's inner circle and Russian agents.
 * SPECIFICO talk  21:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The goal of the discussion was to clarify and shorten the lead paragraph; your proposal crams too much detail into it + it's not neutral. — JFG talk 00:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please number all of the versions here and let your colleagues make the decision. Pre-emptive exclusion of several versions can only sustain the uncertainty and prolong the process. SPECIFICO  talk  00:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't change any numbering, just bolded what was already numbered. You are free to assign a number to your own proposals. — JFG talk 06:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a new one, with some elements by MelanieN and Specifico, call it version 6:

I think this packs a lot into a compact space: actions, intent, attribution, consequences, and ongoing investigations. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 00:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This misrepresents the sources, weasels up key details and brings in less important detail, such as the expulsion. I again ask you to assign a number to my version and to MelanieN's version. SPECIFICO  talk  01:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These last couple of versions (5 and 6) are too detailed for a lead sentence. Darouet's is completely contrary to what sources widely report and not an accurate summary of the article. Version 4 narrows the scope to only the presidential election and is a little too wordy.- MrX 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify how you think Darouet's version is contrary to what sources report? -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:REHASH.- MrX 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see where we've discussed Darouet's proposal above. What, specifically, is "contrary to what sources widely report"? That's a very vague criticism. There's no way to change what Darouet wrote in response to your criticism, unless you say what, specifically, you think is contradicted by reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * How about Version 9


 * Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections through a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption. Russia used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media trolls in an effort to promote the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump and to harm Hillary Clinton. These conclusions were stated by the US Director of National Intelligence in December, 2016 and affirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017. Other nations had shared intelligence relating to communications between Trump's senior advisers and suspected Russian agents as early as 2015. A Special Counsel and several U.S. Congressional committees are investigating the Russian interference and the possibility that there was collusion between Trump's inner circle and Russian agents.
 * SPECIFICO talk  02:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's too detailed and it's not one sentence. Clinton should not be mentioned at all, nor should the article start with Putin. Versions 2, 3, and 3a better conform to WP:LEADSENTENCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I support 's proposed version. It is completely in line with what sources widely report and an accurate summary of the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For starters, it utterly fails to describe or delimit the subject of the article. It's a small off-center subset of what's published in RS and fails WEIGHT and NPOV.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How does it fail NPOV? It's not easy for any summary to capture the full scope of the article, because it's completely unclear what this article is actually supposed to be about. The best approximation I can get of the content that's been added to the article is, "Anything having to do with Russia and Trump." Maybe we should start the article with, "A lot of stuff has happened involving Russia and Trump over the past few months." That would be the most accurate summary of what's actually been added to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think JFG's version may be the best yet, although like SPECIFICO I would leave out the sentence about the retaliatory expulsion. And in its place maybe include the sentence detailing the methods used, found in my version #5 and both of SPECIFICO's versions. I don't like putting "Vladimir Putin personally" in the lede sentence - and yes, I realize it is in the lede paragraph now; both of SPECIFICO's versions move it to a more prominent place than the name and its sourcing deserve IMO, and I'd like to get rid of it altogether. I don't like Darouet's version because it is all weasely; we are way past the point of calling these intelligence reports "allegations" and have had that consensus for some time. Otherwise let's keep trying, I do think we are going to be able to hash this out and come up with a consensus version. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a couple of quibbles regarding JFG's version #6: Instead of "Extensive investigations were started" I would say "Multiple investigations are underway". And I would just say "several congressional committees" because there are actually four working on it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not getting any closer to a consensus here. This section started out seeking a lead sentence and now it's become a discussion about how much can be crammed into a lead paragraph. Maybe we should first get consensus on what we're trying to accomplish here, then a consensus on which major points we are going to include, and then consensus on the specific wording. - MrX 03:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with 's proposed opening paragraph is that it states Russian interference in the Presidential election as a fact. That's not supported by reliable sources, as has been repeatedly established in previous discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that Thucydides411 and Darouet have acted as a tag team since 2011. They might know each other. They seem to be in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:881C:5500:2992:54FA:E30A:398D (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, and next it will be claimed half the editors here are paid by Putin and the other half by Soros… We can't tolerate WP:ASPERSIONS coming from an anonymous IP user posting their only ever contribution to the project. Say who you are or shut up. — JFG talk 06:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure they're a sock of Azul411: Sockpuppet_investigations/Azul411. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-random break
Taking into account feedback on version 6 by, ,  and , here is version 7:

Two people said Clinton should not be mentioned, so I removed that. I replaced the "extensive investigations were started" by "several investigations are underway"; I kept the full list of known investigations: FBI, House, Senate and Special Counsel, I don't believe there are any others (Melanie?). I chose to keep the expulsion of Russian diplomats because that and Flynn's demise are the only concrete consequences of this saga so far; the rest is merely an ongoing political feud. Sure, we have more than one sentence, but the article is complex enough; I think this lead paragraph provides a fair definition and overview of the subject matter. — JFG talk 07:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For people who would prefer a shorter intro, here's an alternate version 7a:
 * This version keeps only the main sequence of events: hacks and propaganda, intelligence assessments and ongoing investigations, without listing consequences. I still prefer v7 but I can live with 7a if a shorter paragraph gets more support. — JFG talk 07:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This version keeps only the main sequence of events: hacks and propaganda, intelligence assessments and ongoing investigations, without listing consequences. I still prefer v7 but I can live with 7a if a shorter paragraph gets more support. — JFG talk 07:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but anything that begins with "Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption" is basically declaring "Russian interference" in the elections to be a fact. As every review we've done above has shown, that's unsupported by reliable sources, and it's a serious violation of NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but what else can we do to convey the distinction between facts and accusations? As long as the article is titled "Russian interference", we are bound to reflect what RS have said about this "Russian interference", even if parts of it may not be Russian and other parts may not be interference… This version is more neutral than the current lead, because it immediately clarifies that such misdeeds were attributed to Russia by the U.S. intelligence agencies. This is the closest I've ever seen to standing a chance of gaining consensus among editors holding different viewpoints, and indeed various sources being more categoric or more doubtful. We can't just prevaricate for years until the "true story" emerges. — JFG talk 09:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Look at 's proposal above. It manages to describe the subject without stating "Russian interference" as a fact. The problem is that your proposed opening sentence makes a declarative statement that isn't supported by reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As every review we've done above has shown, that's unsupported by reliable sources, and it's a serious violation of NPOV. You keep repeating this. It's simply false. I can only find one source, the BBC, that still uses the term allegations. Reuters has stopped using the word. Objective3000 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * We've gone over this issue several times, and each time, the result was that most reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation. There were some editors who didn't accept this conclusion, but they didn't present sources to back up their views. Do you have sources to show that Reuters' editorial stance of "Russian interference" has changed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "We've gone over this issue several times, and each time, the result was that most reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation" is a blatant falsehood. This is not the place for you to repetitively push alternative facts. '''[[WP:HORSEMEAT|Please stop

beating this dead horse]]''' over and over! This refusal to accept consensus at any cost is disruptive and tendentious, and I intend to raise it at AE if it continues. - MrX 16:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider your threat of AE an attempt to use intimidation to stifle discussion over a content dispute. For the record, we have been over this issue several times, and each time, editors arguing that reliable sources do not treat "Russian interference" as a fact have done a lot of source work to show this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I oppose both 7 and 7a. First, a lead sentence should consist of a sentence, not two or three. The first sentence should state in general terms that there was interference in the 2016 elections and that investigations ensued. That's it.- MrX 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is trying to provide a proper introduction to the subject matter, which is too vast and delicate to be distilled into just one sentence, although I agree the lead paragraph should be kept brief and to the point. Do you have an alternate wording to suggest? — JFG talk 12:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to doing just that as a second step. Trying to bite off so much at once is failing, as is evidenced by this divergent discussion. Add to that the exhausting WP:REHASH about "alleged" and we end up at an impasse.- MrX 12:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a fact of life on this article that some discussions about one word have failed, some discussions about one sentence have failed and some discussions about whole sections have failed too. Nevertheless, we must persist, as the saying goes… This particular discussion doesn't look like it's doomed to fail yet; with a little bit of good will from everyone, we should be able to improve the crucial introduction to the subject matter, to the relief of our confused readers. Shall you play? — JFG talk 12:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you will have to persist without me. Please ping me when it looks like consensus is building around a particular version and I will gladly comment then.- MrX 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Delicate?" Putin? Trump? CIA? SPECIFICO  talk  12:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I endorse both 7 and 7a, with a preference for 7a. Thank you, JFG. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. On further research, I find that other committees (such as Senate Judiciary) are holding some hearings on the matter, but the formal responsibility is with the Intelligence committees so I am OK with the wording you have. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Reading them again, I now prefer the shorter version. I would still suggest one amendment: "other disruption" is very vague, perhaps we can replace it with "propaganda efforts", which sums up rather well the combined effect of document leaks, fake news and online trolling, all aimed at discrediting Clinton. What do you think? — JFG talk 15:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Disruption" is not vague, it is general. Disruption is broader than "propaganda" and more closely fits the content described in the article.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I dislike "disruption", and I don't think that word has been used by Reliable Sources. "Propaganda" is somewhat better but not great. How about "cyberattacks, propaganda, and other activities"? --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What kinds of "other activities" do you reckon should be mentioned? I don't remember seeing anything that can't be described as either cyberattacks or propaganda. — JFG talk 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as I look at the entire paragraph, I find mentions of "hackers", "propaganda", and "collusion"; that probably covers it. I endorse 7 and 7a as they are. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Versions 7 and 7a "as they are" still contain the vague "other disruption". Are you okay with replacing that by "propaganda" directly in the first sentence? In that case, we might need to avoid repeating the word "propaganda" in the next sentence; surely that can be done without altering the essence of the intro. — JFG talk 19:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, I probably misread your comment: do you mean that there were three kinds of disruption: hacking, propaganda and collusion? In that case, we could go with "… was a campaign of cyberattacks, propaganda and suspected collusion …" because that last point remains unproven today, just under intense scrutiny. — JFG talk 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Collusion" is not intrinsically a form of interference. That would be more in the realm of tactics. Please consider what you mean to communicate by "propaganda"? I have not seen that used in press or other discussions of the elections. Also, the collusion is not "alleged" -- it has been widely reported and was done publicly on at least one occasion in a televised speech of candidate Trump.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * JFG: No, I prefer it the way you have it: with a separate sentence saying there are investigations into possible collusion as per 7 and 7a. SPECIFICO: I disagree about "collusion". It is not "widely reported", it is not even "alleged" in Reliable Sources, and are you really claiming Trump publicly admitted to collusion??? Gotta see a source for that, for sure. 0;-D I have not seen any reliable source state affirmatively "there was collusion", it's always things like "raises the possibility of collusion". We need to leave it as a suspicion, under investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm surprised. Are you OK with collaboration, exhortation, coordination, etc.? "Collusion" does not necessarily mean that Trump's approval was critical to the Russian interference or that his group contributed to the initial cyberattacks. But this is beside the point because the Russians apparently have well-developed cyber- and disninformation-warfare capabilities and did not need Trump's computer savvy to steal data or to initiate fake news and trolling. However dozens of public speeches and televised statements show Trump and his team colluding in the common dictionary meaning of collude, meaning to act according to a common mutual understanding to further the goal of harming some person or thing. "Collusion" is not the name of a crime, just an action. Here's one discussion of the collusion: . Anyway let's see how others see this?  SPECIFICO  talk  22:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Good. So shall we go with 7a or keep talking until the cows come home? Please let's try our best to avoid another RfC… — JFG talk 21:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Who is doing the investigation and what intelligence agencies are doing the investigation are not important for the opening. Just tell the reader the so what in as few as words as possible.
 * I concur with MrX. What the reader needs to takeaway from the article can and should be done in one sentence. We can expand from there, but we should focus on that one sentence first. Can't we do that and stay focused? Casprings (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Poorly written and unintelligible. 18:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC) (talk • contribs)
 * There is nothing magical about a single sentence. If the information can be better conveyed in a couple of sentences - as I think this long discussion has clearly demonstrated - then use a couple of sentences. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also if we state interference by "propaganda" then "propaganda attacks" is redundant.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also if we state interference by "propaganda" then "propaganda attacks" is redundant.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment.
New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment.

Could be a useful source to use for this article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election


Sagecandor (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to fit under the "Intrusions into state voter-registration systems" section of this article. The leaker Reality Winner (currently a redirect) might deserve her own article if she gets enough notable coverage. In the mean time, I'd urge editors to add some of the higher quality sources listed above or beyond to avoid WP:OVERCITE, if I don't get around to it myself. FallingGravity 02:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Original source: Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election. The Intercept, Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim, June 5 2017 -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a significant development worthy of inclusion.- MrX 03:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It still doesn't answer the question of whether actual vote tampering occurred, at least by this method, but this would not have occurred if something like that wasn't a possible motive. Planning vote tampering and actually doing it are two different things. Did they ever "do" it? We don't know yet. The preparations were certainly laid. Let's see if RS will soon answer these questions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * MSM reports regarding Reality Winner ...(that name is bittersweet af!!!)....


 * http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-arrest-nsa-contractor-leak-top-secret-russia-document-n768561
 * http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/politics/federal-contractor-leak-prosecution/index.html
 * http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-contractor-reality-leigh-winner-arrested-for-sending-classified-nsa-intelligence-to-news-outlet/article/262501 - Darknipples
 * & Julian Assange - http://thehill.com/homenews/news/336470-julian-assange-alleged-nsa-leaker-must-be-supported Darknipples (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, everyone's suddenly loving the Intercept, a source they've mocked and denigrated when it suggests a bit more critical scepticism, once it finally provides them with yet another "important/significant" thing that "must" be included. Btw note this paragraph from the original report:
 * While the document provides a rare window into the NSA’s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying “raw” intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.
 *  N-HH   talk / edits  09:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I point out, the only thing the report states was done by Russian actors was spear phishing. The headlines are catchy... but getting people to hand you information deceitfully is a lot different than hacking (the NSA even noted in the report that they had no evidence of what the data taken was used for, if anything at all; so to assume this had any impact on, or in anyway "interfered" with, the election is beyond wannabe detective work). ... Simple media sensationalism of a criminal government contractor just to turn up the clicks shouldn't bleed over onto an encyclopedia. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We report what OR say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What on earth is more reliable (I'm assuming you intended to acronymize WP:RS not WP:OR) than the intelligence report itself might I ask? Is it not our job to be as accurate and verifiable as possible here? 77.66.12.7 (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's a primary source, and WP relies on secondary source interpretation of them rather than our own. That said, the point about not driving WP content based on day-by-day headlines is correct, and one literally ignored since day one on this page.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Intelligence reports are not "primary sources", they are usually (and as in this case) a collection of many different sources. A report such as this is just as reliable as a published medical journal, if not more so... it's definitely vetted as much. Surely you can't tell me some rule is going to hold us back from doing what we're supposed to be doing here? I mean maybe I would understand your concern if this was an article about the NSA report (that would be quite primary indeed), but it isn't... this is an article about Russia's interference in the election, of which this report is a very trustworthy secondary source. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we know if this is the actual document or a forgery?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have about 2 dozen links above you that state it's real. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So then we can say what RS say about it. Also it does not "The only thing the report states was done by Russian actors was spear phishing" It says that the spear phishing used data from an earlier attack. Also a single report does not mean this was the only attack(or even report). So this also falls into OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your grammar is horrendous. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much doubt currently that it's real. As for primary v secondary, you can argue the raw data the report was based on are the primary sources, and the report the "secondary" analysis of those, but I'm not sure that holds up in this context. We have a standalone document which has been leaked. It's not up to us to conclude what it really means. And IAR is not what we are "supposed" to be doing as a matter of course, it's a get-out/exception when following the standard rules would be self-defeating. Also, pithy and pointless criticism of grammar in talk page posts doesn't help much. If someone's point is genuinely unclear, you could always ask for clarification.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well these are my thoughts nonetheless. I hope someone takes them into consideration. I'm off to do other things for now. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Primary source as citation ?
Disagree with this edit.

When we have plenty of secondary sources, no need to use primary sources here.

Can we remove this citation ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, also disagree with this edit, as we have secondary sources backing up the same info. Can the now two primary source citations be removed? Sagecandor (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove them all. That section has plenty of sources without them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, can the primary sources be removed, in favor of only keeping the secondary sources? Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If secondary RS mention the primary sources, then we normally provide the primary sources as a service to readers. There is no policy-based reason to not include them in such situations. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey's sworn testimony to the senate June 8th 2017


https://www.scribd.com/document/350654136/James-Comey-Statement-to-Senate-Intelligence-Committee-June-8-2017

This might be helpful to shed some light on the subject. Particularly the sections regarding the FBI opening an investigation into collusion and obstruction and his sworn testimony that there was none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk • contribs)
 * thumb|8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Already in article. Casprings (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael R. Caputo
Michael R. Caputo

New article, might have sourced info you wish to use to add to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Mueller's investigative/prosecution team
Robert Mueller, Special Counsel, is assembling a prosecution team. We need to cover this in this article. Here are the current members, and feel free to add more as we learn more: -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, good idea, I was thinking the same thing. Do you think the redlinks could be articles? Sagecandor (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weissman has an illustrious career, with a potentially huge bio. Rachel Maddow discussed him in depth last night. Quarles could also qualify. I don't know the others. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Team members


 * Robert Mueller, Special Counsel
 * Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General (recused)
 * Andrew Weissmann, head of the Justice Department’s criminal fraud unit
 * James Quarles (attorney), an assistant Watergate prosecutor
 * Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s FBI chief of staff
 * Jeannie Rhee, a former DOJ attorney
 * Michael Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, oversees the Justice Department’s criminal appellate docket


 * Sources


 * The Man Investigating Donald Trump’s Russia Connections Is Assembling a Murderer’s Row of Prosecutors, GQ
 * Everything we know about the Mueller probe so far, Politico Magazine
 * Mueller Enlists Top Criminal Law Expert for Russia Probe, National Law Journal]]
 * Legal dream team in white shirts and dark suits, CNN

Removal of entire section on Internet trolls ?
Strongly disagree with this undiscussed removal of entire section on Internet trolls and Trolls from Olgino at.

Undiscussed.

No consensus for removal.

Contains multiple different reliable sources.

None of the material from the cited experts was contested in the media, just the "ProOrNot" crap, which is not included here.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted, although I'm fine with tabling the Wapo bit if indeed they have retracted. Darknipples (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed that bit. Sagecandor (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely think we need a thorough, well sourced section on the use of trolls. I don't think we need to lay out the full title and qualifications of every source. That's what reference links are for. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay that makes sense also. Sagecandor (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The story has not been "retracted" - they simply added a statement by the editor saying that one of the sources they referred to (the PropOrNot report) has been contested and was later modified. I see no valid reason for deletion here - especially since the material in our article has nothing to do with the PropOrNot part of the Post story (and is therefore still perfectly usable/valid). The initial deletion of the entire section (with an edit summary about McCarthyism) was waaaay over the top BTW. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with your assessment. Nevertheless, I've trimmed from that section a bit, and if we avoid that particular cite, hopefully we avoid problems in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to defer to others here, but personally I see no reason to avoid citing that piece. The Post noting that PropOrNot might have some issues does not invalidate their reporting (which specifically attributed anything they took from PropOrNot to PropOrNot). All the other info/claims in the article are still perfectly usable. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But the article will be less likely to have future conflicts about this, without it. It's come up before. I agree with your entire rationale. Sagecandor (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the WaPo article, PropOrNot is the source for most of their claims. It's not just that they disavowed one of their sources - they disavowed the source that was the basis for most of the story. This wasn't the prettiest episode in the Washington Post's history, and they were scolded by a number of reputable outlets for their use of a blacklist compiled by an anonymous group of seeming amateurs. PropOrNot doesn't just possibly have some issues. The authors turned out to be listing anyone they politically disliked as Russian stooges, including well-known publications like CounterPunch which clearly aren't anything of the sort. Their supposed validation of these claims was so weak that they were willing to remove anyone from their blacklist that complained about the classification. In short, the WaPo wrote an article based on some anonymous, probably amateur smear campaign by some random online group, and then when they were criticized for publishing the story, appended a note disavowing the main source for the story. PropOrNot shopped their blacklist around to other news outlets by the way, which weren't willing to publish it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * About PropOrNot: here's a New Yorker article about the Washington Post's decision to cite PropOrNot's blacklist, and the New Yorker's decision not to do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was only part of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the main source for the article. We really should not be citing such a shoddy piece of journalism. If we do mention it at all, it should be to describe the scandal surrounding its publication. The section would describe the Washington Post's decision to cite a blacklist compiled by a group of anonymous amateurs, and the heavy criticism the Washington Post faced for that decision, including the accusation of McCarthyism leveled at the Post. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused by this edit, as I already reverted its deletion. Darknipples (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So am I. I would have expected a message I the edit page saying the deletion found not be undone. At any rate the result looks ok to me. Am I missing something? SPECIFICO  talk  20:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears you reinserted the washington post reference that is in dispute and was removed by Sagecandor . PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a quick look at sections 1.3 & 1.4, and tell me if you are also seeing double. Thanks! Darknipples (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, I missed that part of it as well. I was just looking at the one section. PackMecEng (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed - note edit summary. --Neil N  talk to me 20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the New Yorker article you cited should be included in context to this section of the article, as well. I don't believe it negates the rest of the section, but it is certainly worthy of inclusion in some regard. See what you think we can add from it. Darknipples (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thucydides, do you agree that WaPo is a mainstream RS? SPECIFICO  talk  21:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with version by NeilN. Sagecandor (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be crystal clear, that edit was solely done for uncontentious, maintenance purposes (i.e., I wasn't involving myself in content matters). --Neil N  talk to me 22:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not every article published by a normally reliable source is always reliable. In this case, there was a backlash against the WaPo's article, with other reliable sources calling it "propaganda" and "McCarthyism." The WaPo issued a partial retraction, and the main source for their reporting has turned out to be a group of politically motivated amateurs that other reliable sources didn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole.
 * Note that you're taking a very different attitude here than you took above regarding Goodin. There, you argued vociferously against a completely mainstream summary in a reliable source of reactions to the JAR. You raised a whole number of objections to using reporting by a writer for Ars Technica, a reliable source. But now, you seem to be arguing that if something was published by a reliable source, we should include it - even though we know that that report was a bunch of nonsense, and other reliable sources said so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Who called WaPo "propaganda" and "McCarthyism," exactly? Got a link? And stop calling the editorial note they added a "retraction," it's obviously no such thing. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The New Yorker published a piece called "The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda", which was about PropOrNot and the Washington Post's decision to publish it. The article ends,
 * "But, as harmful as these phenomena might be, the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier."
 * If they're not outright calling the Washington Post's article "propaganda," they're calling the central source the Washington Post relied on "propaganda," and thoroughly scolding the WaPo for publishing the piece.
 * The Intercept leveled the accusation of McCarthyism against PropOrNot (and arguably against the WaPo) - an accusation that the New Yorker quoted in its article. Here's what The Intercept had to say:
 * "The group promoted by the Post thus embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist."
 * Rolling Stone ran a piece labeling the WaPo article an "astonishingly lazy report." The Rolling Stone article quoted Pullitzer-prize winning journalist Chris Hedges as saying the WaPo piece is an "updated form of Red-Baiting."
 * That's the kind of source we're relying on here. Why would we rely on a WaPo article that's taken this amount of flak, based on such a discredited source? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it correct to read you to say that you deny that WaPo is a mainstream RS? (btw we all know that not every RS report warrants article WEIGHT and we all know the non-notable UNDUE Goodin bit is a straw man here.) SPECIFICO  talk  22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Read what I wrote directly above, and in my post above that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO, this is a place where I agree with Thucydides411. They are not saying that The Washington Post isn't "normally" considered a RS. It is, but there is no source which is always reliable. In this case it was provably unreliable and they admitted it, which is how professional journalistic sources deal with their own mistakes. Fringe websites don't do that, which makes them unreliable sources pretty much all the time. This is not a black/white issue. There are nuances. Normally, unless proven otherwise, the correct default position is to treat it as a RS, but this is one time to not defend the WaPo. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My impression based on this and other opinions of Thuc was that he was claiming WaPo is generally shoddy. Hence my inquiry. SPECIFICO  talk  03:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The section relies almost exclusively on two sources: the discredited WaPo PropOrNot piece, and a couple pieces by Watts and Weisburg. I don't think the WaPo PropOrNot article should come into consideration, unless we want to mention the PropOrNot scandal itself. That means the section is essentially a recapitulation of some claims about trolling made by Watts and Weisburg. I have doubts about the reliability of War on the Rocks, or generally about "research" that comes out of the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). says we need a well-sourced section on the use of trolls. What if there aren't good sources on the alleged use of trolls? The FPRI-affiliated sources we're giving a lot of airtime right now are questionable at best. We don't normally write sections first, and then look for sources afterwards. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there anything you could propose for this section that isn't sourced to FPRI or the WaPo PropOrNot article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to do the research; the folks at this discussion have done a lot. I said we need a well sourced section. If there is consensus here that these sources are not good enough, I do not contest that consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey testimony about news article
Footnote 227 is a news article titled, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence". However, former FBI Director Comey testified under oath today that this news article was almost entirely wrong, so we shouldn't continue to leave the impression that this news article's accuracy has not been seriously challenged. See, for example: Easley, Jonathan. rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories", The Hill (June 8, 2017): "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled 'Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence'.... Cotton asked Comey if that story was 'almost entirely wrong,' and Comey said that it was."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably worthy of inclusion as long as it is properly attributed, however, it doesn't necessarily negate inclusion of said "entirely wrong" report. Comey's opinion certainly is notable here, but opinions should be noted as such. Darknipples (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From NYT as referenced from the link in your citation from TheHill.com ; "Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article, which was based on information from four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified. The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comey’s remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid." Darknipples (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

i think this article isn't very neutral
its about the language. for example instead of

"The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections"

it should be

"The United States government's intelligence agencies claimed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections"

--81.136.77.195 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, but as you can see, this has been a point of contention for months on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, a "claim" is a statement made without evidence (e.g., Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped him), the US intelligence agencies have substantial evidence, so they drew conclusions based on the evidence. To say that Russian interference is a claim would be unsourced, non-neutral, and of course, false. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A claim can be made with evidence. It's simply a statement that is unproven. How much evidence US intelligence agencies actually have is unknown at this point. The publicly released evidence (e.g., in the JAR) is very sparse, and there's speculation that there may be weightier evidence that's classified. Almost all the available evidence comes from private security firms, at this point.
 * We don't really know what the intelligence agencies have concluded - we'd have to have telepathic powers or some inside information to know that. We know what they publicly state, and past experience shows that there's often a wide gulf between what intelligence agencies state publicly and internally assess (that's in the very nature of their being secretive organizations). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not our problem. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as it affects how we write the article, it is our problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Intelligence agencies concluded" is a statement of fact. One can dislike the fact, one can disagree with the conclusion, but that it is a fact is not something that can be negotiated. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable sources that state that the United States government's intelligence agencies did NOT conclude the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections? If not, I don't understand your point. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Claims can be made without evidence but conclusions presume evidence. In this case, intelligence weighed evidence, so conclusion is a better description.  Since conclusions are not necessarily correct or even reasonable, I don't think the term is inaccurate.  If evidence shows they are wrong, we would change it to "wrongly concluded."  TFD (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple of issues with the lead that doesn't seem neutral. The word interfere seems to mean too many things also and needs more information. The intelligence reports more likely showed they were trying to influence the election. So using influenced is more likely what he intelligence documents were saying. The media outlets and others are sensationalizing the story and making it into a bigger story than the intelligence reports actually found. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's actually exactly why "interfered" is better than "influenced". The latter implies that it had an actual effect. The former only that there was an attempt - whether successful or not - at influence. So I think you got it backwards. Also "media outlets", at least those which meet our criteria, is exactly what we use as reliable sources. So you're not going to get far by asking Wikipedia to ignore reliable sources because you happen personally to believe they are "sensationalizing" something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I should say trying to influence. That implies that they tried to but doesn't mean they actually did. Interfere sounds more substantial to me than influence the election. I guess we are now talking semantics on this. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * semantics is essential. Without meaning we can say nothing.  Influenced is a causal term that implies an effect.  Interfered means actions were taken to influence the election outcome, but it does not imply that these actions actually influenced the outcome.  I think what you may be getting at is that "interfered" carries with it intent whereas "influenced" does not imply intent.  However, sources clearly establish intent on the part of the Russian government. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I guess I should become a lawyer because it looks like an be an argument of meaning and definitions of words here. The word influenced might carry with it intent because they intended to do effect the election which is the same as interfere which also carries intent of changing something in the election. Influence simply means they were trying to influence the voter and participants of the election. They weren't actually trying to interfere with the actual election itself though. Interference seems to be more of a forceful action of doing something. In any case there can be intent with either one. You can intend to influence an election and also intend to interfere in an election. Its not about intent but more about the actions which were specifically took and the evidence that supports it with the sources. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it may be worth asking yourself; can you imagine a situation in which one party was "trying to influence" something without "interfering" in it? From where I sit, the only way to attempt to influence something without interfering would be prayer. And if you believe in God, then whether or not you've interfered by praying becomes an arguable point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not a lawyer. You should become a Philosopher or a priest. But we're not lawyers or philosophers here. Just lowly editors -- most of us with no particular opinion as to the underlying facts and events. Just scouring reliable sources for the mainstream narrative. SPECIFICO  talk  19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well there is differences in the words obviously and how they are being used. It seems that interference has more of an action with it and different intention with it. The definition of interfere is more about trying to stop a process or something from occurring with it. It has more of an effect on the thing happening and what is occurring. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't the with the intelligence community conclusions, the problem is the completely synthesized relationship to the Trump campaign and the investigations around Russian influence. There simply is no current link and to synthesize one is beyond what a neutral encyclopedia should be.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 
 * Somehow, I doubt that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the problem seems to be that some news media sources dont even use those intelligence conclusions. They make up their own conclusions. Then this being wikipedia they are allowed to have them as sources and be used on here with little thought. Simply because they have been granted almighty status because they are media companies. Fox news can also say what they want and many on the other side would scream bloody murder if they were used. So I guess it can go both ways with this. Aaroneditor1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence (not just media reports) that U.S. intelligence agencies either concluded or claimed that Russia interfered in U.S. elections? If not, why do so many editors insist on attributing that assertion (instead of the one actually made in the cited intelligence report) to U.S. intelligence agencies instead of media reports? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the evidence of this includes the released IC assessment. Media reports from reliable outlets are adequate, too. GABgab 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're referring to the same IC assessment cited by those media reports, it does not in fact say that, as I assume you know. If you're referring to a different IC assessment, please provide a link. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused as to why reliable sources all saying "they concluded X" isn't enough evidence that they concluded X. If there is that broad of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, then any attempt to get around it on a public part of the internet is doomed to failure, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we have access to the very same primary sources cited by and used by those supposedly reliable sources. They're not suppressing the truth, they're just relying on the fact that they can cite a primary source, even provide a link to it, and still get by with claiming it says something it doesn't because their intended audience won't bother to check because they like getting spoonfed. Wikipedia can bother to check. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources should at least be examined more. Do you trust Fox news as a reliable source? Some people do and others don't. So the definition of a reliable sources doesn't mean much unless you are able to look at them more. Also the intelligence reports say influence from what I have seen in them. They don't mention anything more or the impact of what occurred. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For simple statements of fact, I do trust Fox News. Do you know why? Because Fox News has a habit of getting simple statements of fact right. It's when you get into their opinions and their overall portrayal of politicized news events that they become questionable sources. But NPR, AP, BBC, Reuters, ABC, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal (etc, etc...)? They have a habit of getting the overall portrayal of politicized news events right, and giving well-informed opinions. I understand skepticism; I'm a skeptic. But the current fad among the extremes of the political spectrum to distrust the "mainstream media" isn't skepticism, it's a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Its because nobody trusts the supposedly reliable sources. This is not an appropriate argument or believable. If you have a problem with what is considered a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. Such discussions cannot be played out on every talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The criteria for reliable sources are right here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with some of the previous points on corrections to the opening sentence:

1. "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded.." - not all of them. In fact, not even MOST of them. This should be changed to "Three of the United States' sixteen intelligence agencies have concluded...". To use the current sentence is to state that all sixteen coordinated, which isn't true.

2. "...the Russian government interfered..." - this is not fact, it's speculation. The declassified information from the three intelligence agencies concludes that "Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election." (from page 7 of the official document). Whether their efforts were actually effective in altering the election is speculation. There are many who believe that the Russian campaign had no impact on the election results and therefore did not interfere. The official document only uses the word "interfere" twice, neither of which are used to describe Russia's actions. "Interfere" is the wrong word.

Both of the above changes are factual. Consequently, the entire sentence should be changed to...

"Three of the United States' sixteen intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian Government, led by Vladimir Putin, ordered a campaign with the intent of influencing the 2016 United States Presidential Election." droxford —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The current opening sentence is supported by reliable sources. Your suggestion is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My suggestions are supported by the official document that was released by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Try reading it. It's only 25 pages long. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf  The article should state fact. It should not be used as propaganda. droxford  —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've proven that I'm right. You're ignorant to reality and facts. Droxford (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reality is that if you call other editors ignorant, they will ignore you, at best. "I’m right and you’re ignorant" is not a very good argument. Objective3000 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My retort was appropriate for his in-depth and thorough "you are wrong" response. If he wants to respond childishly, perhaps I should have responded with "you're wrong infinity". However I believe it's better for all to keep this discussion at a higher level.

Regarding the article, I stand by my statements. The change should be made to ensure that the article presents factual information, not personal agenda. Droxford (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First, personal attacks are very likely to get you blocked from editing, and absolutely no-one here has the slightest bit of respect for an editor who has to rely on them to make their case. The are only "appropriate" to an editor who's trying to get blocked.
 * Second, your argument above is pure original research, and completely unusable. The reliable sources all agree that all 17 agencies lent their weight. You aren't telling me I'm wrong, you're telling every reputable journalist who has covered this report that they're wrong, not to mention the hordes of intelligence agents who haven't been blowing the same trumpet you're tooting here.
 * When all 17 intelligence agencies agree on a conclusion, but only three send representatives, that does not, in any way indicate that only those three agree on the conclusion. How the ever loving hell you need this explained to you is completely beyond me. But apparently you're in luck, because politifact took a turn at the claim in the lead when Clinton said it. Spoiler alert: You're wrong.
 * Deal with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that has a point: when pressed on this question of "17 agencies" in various interviews and Senate testimonies, Brennan, Clapper and Comey all said that only 3 agencies contributed to the reports on Russian interference: FBI, CIA and NSA (which makes sense, as they all have relevant competence). Separately, the ODNI does supervise all intelligence agencies, and those facts were conflated as a campaign talking point to say "all 17 agencies agree that Russia did it" whereas the facts of the matter are that the ODNI made that assessment and you can't find anywhere in their report that 17 agencies somehow contributed, expressed an opinion or even were consulted. The Politifact evaluation you cite doesn't say anything different (emphasis mine): We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. — JFG talk 03:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Campaign? SPECIFICO  talk  03:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, campaign: the Russia-WikiLeaks claims first surfaced on July 25, 2016, at the opening of the Democratic convention, just a couple days after WikiLeaks had published the DNC emails. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-25/cybersecurity-experts-say-russia-hacked-the-democrats Then Clinton emphasized the "17 intelligence agencies" claim during the third presidential debate. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/ and media coverage picked up from there. Compare a news search for "17 intelligence agencies" and "Russia" from January to September 2016 with the same search for just October 2016. — JFG talk 06:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A candidate stating a fact doesn't make it a campaign talking point. Let's not tell the intelligence agencies how to do their work. Let's just report what they say, as scrutinized and verified by RS. This point has been hashed and rehashed here so many times it would help not to bring it up any further here. WP editors' theories about how the US intelligence services "should" conduct themselves is of no interest to our users.  SPECIFICO  talk  12:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh? "Let's just report what they say"? That's exactly my point! The head of the intel agencies said under oath that the report was compiled by FBI, CIA and NSA, nobody else. There is no "WP editors' theories" behind this at all... — JFG talk 13:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my comment here. Even ignoring that completely insurmountable objection to this edit, it's still not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. The simple fact is; when the spokesman for an agency speaks for that agency, they are speaking for that agency. That you've "uncovered" the fact that only three of the agencies worked on the report only shows that three of the agencies worked on the report. It doesn't indicate, in any way -as such an edit would- that the other agencies disagreed with them or even held no opinion on the matter. Indeed, we have a statement prepared on behalf of the entire US intelligence community which states quite clearly the lack of any disagreement, whatsoever. Neither of you have, nor can prove that no-one in any other agency did not review the report and endorse it, for example. I know you both see this as "there's no evidence that any of the other agencies had anything to do with this," but that's simply not an accurate view of this report. The authors were explicitly speaking for the entire community, as evinced not only in the report but in the reliable third-party coverage of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not me saying it, it's the DNI director in charge. Clapper's Senate testimony, May 8, 2017, his opening statement:
 * Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/ — JFG talk 05:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Product of" != "statement by" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Right: the reports were a product of the FBI, CIA and NSA research, and the conclusive assessment was a statement by the DNI. I fail to see why people are so hung up on this "17 agencies" myth. — JFG talk 13:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's stated by multiple reliable sources, and never contested. Reminder: Nothing in that quote you provided contradicts any of the possibilities I mentioned above. This is analogous to a situation in which a company (let's say Google) takes a contract to provide some service to another company (let's say Amazon). Six months later, the CEO of Google could say "only these three out of our 17 departments have directly provided services to Amazon," but that in no way implies that other departments within Google aren't going to provide services, aren't required to provide services, or that the heads of those departments would argue that the contract doesn't include their departments. You've provided evidence that 14 agencies weren't involved in working on the report, but you're using that to claim that 14 agencies have nothing to do with the report. That's OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Methinks you're grasping at straws... There are plenty of reliable sources who say the world is real and atoms are a thing, but nothing in the scientific body of knowledge contradicts the hypothesis that we all live in a simulation. By Occam's Razor, we do live in reality and the 14 intelligence agencies that are never mentioned played absolutely no role in building or endorsing the reports. Note that this fact doesn't remove an ounce of credibility to the IC assessment; if anything, it would reinforce it, because the FBI, CIA and NSA are certainly more qualified than the Marine Corps Intelligence to opine on Russia's nefarious cyber-schemes. — JFG talk 16:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Forget Occam's Razor. This is Jack the Ripper. RS reflect how the intelligence community works and collaborates and if there were a dissenting view among them, this would be reported and could perhaps be relevant to the article. Or perhaps not, because it didn't happen so we have no way of knowing about something that didn't happen and wasn't reported by RS. SPECIFICO  talk
 * Agree with SPECIFICO. This is a waste of time and parsing hairs. The 17 agencies are 17 agencies and this is what reliable sources say. To debate otherwise without suggesting any sources to back up claims to the contrary is a waste of time without reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can think whatever you want, it won't make you right. Your analogy is a perfect illustration of my point. I'm not sure if you noticed that or not, but the unsupported hypothesis that there's no evidence against is yours, not mine. The report explicitly speaks for the entire intelligence community, something which I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring. I'll be the first to admit that it's not overwhelming or even particularly compelling evidence that, for example, INSCOM agrees with the report, but it is evidence. On the other hand, you keep offering evidence that might mean I'm wrong about an implication I've made, if you interpret my remarks in a certain way and interpret that evidence in another, certain way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is yet another dispute I don't understand. It's perfectly clear to everyone here that three agencies (not seventeen) were involved in producing the report. That's what Clapper said rather explicitly in his testimony (and I see no reason why he would have lied about such a trivial detail), and it's also pretty obvious that the Coast Guard Intelligence wasn't involved. We're just repeating a campaign line that we know is factually wrong. Why? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP does not publish the beliefs of its editors or what they can and can't understand. Let's stick to the mainstream of RS reporting. This is the US National Intelligence Assessment and it presents the conclusion of 17 agencies based on whatever however manyofthem shared with the other howevermanyofthem. That's what RS say.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with . To do anything different would be to violate WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with . To do anything different would be to violate WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no "belief of editors" involved. Quoting the ODNI's own report and Clapper's sworn statements is not "original research". Again, look at the ODNI report of January 2017, section "Scope":

That same report doesn't say anything about "17 intelligence agencies", it doesn't even contain the number 17 or the word "seventeen". When it talks about intelligence agencies, it says: "All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence." Again, not a word on other agencies.

Add Clapper's sworn testimony of May 7: As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office.

Since January, there has been no further report or statement contradicting this fact. It's high time Wikipedia reflects reality (which again, is perhaps even more convincing than the "17 agencies" myth, but that's a matter for individual judgment). — JFG talk 09:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @MjolnirPants - you are flat-out wrong. The report does not "explicitly speak for the intelligence community." It NEVER states that, or anything similar to that. If I'm wrong about this, please cite the section in the report that you're referring to.


 * The report DOES explicitly state (in the Scope section on page i) that "this report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among the CIA, FBI, and NSA, which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies." This sentence is a clear and explicit OMISSION of all other intelligence agencies.


 * This article should not continue to obfuscate this clear fact. Do not bend the truth. Droxford (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses secondary reliable sources over primary sources when available, partly to avoid original research issues. Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh noes. He told me not to meddle with The Truth&trade;! What shall I do?! But seriously, if your boss makes a statement for the whole company, it doesn't matter whether only the PR department worked on it. It's a statement for the whole company. This is true even when you work for the government. When the chief of intelligence makes a statement on behalf of the intelligence community, they are speaking for the intelligence community, not for the specific agencies (or to take it further, the specific agents) who wrote it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Top law firms refusing to represent Trump
Top law firms are refusing to represent Trump in the Russia matter. There are four named reasons:


 * 1) Trump won't listen to advice
 * 2) He has a history of not paying his debts, including to his own lawyers
 * 3) Representing Trump could damage the firm's reputation and cause them to have difficulty getting new recruits
 * 4) Representing Trump could damage the firm's reputation with their existing clientelle


 * Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump, Yahoo News, Michael Isikoff, June 6, 2017

BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Who cares? According to reports from May 24, he is represented by Marc Kasowitz. The story of why law firm so-and-so won't work with him is undue. — JFG talk 04:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested how, when, or whether we should use this, but "undue" refers to "how" we actually use it. If a relatively minor thing is given too much weight, then that's undue. If it's not mentioned at all, then undue is not part of the equation, unless it should have been mentioned, in which case it is not getting the due attention it should, and it should then get some mention. Time will tell. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the scope of this article, and the fact he did obtain counsel, seems like trivia. Objective3000 (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Who he's working with is worth including. Who decided not to (for whatever reason) is not. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is an irrelevance.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree. There could be more benign reasons to not want to get involved (maybe they're already at capacity). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see any direct connection to the article here. What exactly does this have to do with Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections, and why is it relevant enough for inclusion? - Darknipples (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The relevance to this article is because Trump is trying (unsuccessfully) to lawyer up for legal defense in relation to his purported role in this whole business. Therefore it's directly relevant. One can question the degree of relevance at this point in time, and I would agree that we might not want to include this now. Keep in mind I have not suggested we include this YET, but the relevance does exist. (As I often do, I use the talk page for one of its important functions, to provide sourcing and suggestions for possible content. Whether it gets used is another matter. I won't get offended if a consensus decides not to use it, but I would object to anyone finding fault with any editor's use of a talk page for this part of its intended purpose.

Muboshgu, the four points are not guesswork. They are the reasons given by the legal firms. "More benign reasons" would be OR guesswork. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Except the article makes clear it was not unsuccessful only that four refused before he found one that would represent him.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. I hadn't heard he found one qualified for this job. Who has he found? I was under the impression he was still stuck with the one he's had for many years, his personal attorney Marc Kasowitz, a lawyer wholly unqualified for this type of case. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No snark, please. The discussion here is whether to include the report that he's having trouble finding a "top law firm". Consensus seems to be not to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No snark intended. Simply facts as stated in RS. I'm not pressing for inclusion. Good to have discussion. That's the purpose here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Changes to lede intro and addition of POV template
Disagree with these changes by The_Diaz:

Lede changes

POV template.

Lede changes are wrong as not supported by the sources.

POV template is not explained on this talk page.

Both edits need to be undone. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, you want to discuss NPOV. Kindly proceed.- MrX 20:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * His reason is WP:WIKIHOUNDING, per comments by admin at the now Speedy-closed Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS. Sagecandor (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Note my comment in the subsection "Template". That explains the POV template since that RfC is about the neutrality of the lead section. Think before you speak. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 22:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As there is an ongoing RFC, there is already great attention from editors to this page and this topic. There is no need for the "POV" template for the entire length of time of the RFC. Sagecandor (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the RfC even still active? It looked to me as if the formal RfC petered out more than a month ago, and the later informal survey on the lede hasn't been edited for the past week. (P.S. I agree that the change to the lede by The Diaz was all wrong and was not even close to anything discussed here.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Insertion of the word "indirectly" into the changes of the lead by this editor is cause for concern, because, in reviewing the WaPo material I found that this is neither stated nor implied from within the text of the cited source. If it was not accidental, it is likely to be construed as WP:SYNTH. Darknipples (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree this is WP:SYNTH and both the lede should go back to previously stable version, and the POV template should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

POV template
You have inserted a POV template into this article. Please explain what you find to be non-neutral and what changes you think need to be made. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Although you do good work MelanieN, this article is as biased as possible and unless wikipedia en changes and actually follows its WP:NPOV policy and guidelines, sadly nothing will change that. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifics ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No kidding. perhaps you can provide evidence to support your sweeping claims. It seems like you are confusing NPOV with your own personal POV.- MrX 16:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * edit conflict, yet again - comment, "Please explain what you find to be non-neutral and what changes you think need to be made". is, what's the word, asymptotic come to mind. the bias is so excessive as to be beyond neutral hope, in such a case a template stating such on the article can and should remain indefinitely. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki. Sagecandor (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good honest neutral comment, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comments betray your POV, suggesting the ugly "POV" template stay on this page until the heat death of the universe. That is ludicrous. Sagecandor (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My pov on this topic is WP:NPOV AND Policies and guidelines - I don't have a position on the subject, I see lots of not neutral reporting on this subject, that is all I am commenting on. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Examples? Sagecandor (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Examples, lol, the whole article top to bottom is written in violation of all of wiki policy and guidelines - the whole page is an example of biased non neutral reporting. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is based on Reliable Sources. That is policy. Since you keep talking in generalities and won't give any specific examples, or any suggestions for how to fix the problem you claim to see, your commentary here is unhelpful and likely to be ignored. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * it's not correct that this article is simply "based on Reliable Sources." As I've pointed out numerous times, plenty of sources treat interference as an allegation or possibility, not a fact, and the lead text does not convey this. I've pinged you numerous times to get your input on this topic and you've ignored each ping while still editing here at talk, and on the page.
 * I agree with and  that this section is written in a non-neutral manner and think we should keep the tag until these issues are addressed. -Darouet (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OIC. That's a LITTLE more specific than Govinda's generalities. So you feel that the interference should be referred to as "alleged" rather than a fact? And that's the issue you think justifies the POV tag? Just trying to get straight what people are saying here. And yes, I think I may have ignored several pings on the subject - frankly regarding it as a DEADHORSE. But let's at least get clear what we are talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now I see you have re-opened the subject yet again, just below. So I guess the answer to my question is, yes, this is the issue you feel justifies the POV tag. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not challenging anything myself. I'm just noting the RfC (and this section now) about the lead and how it is supposedly non-neutral. I feel that the template should be removed when the RfC is closed. Which I'm about to request. do seeing that I'm technically uninvolved and that any editor can do so. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 16:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Any editor that feels the lead is POV must be able to point out each specific sentence they claim is POV, along with their citations, explain why it's POV, and we can go from there. Speaking in generalities will get us nowhere. Just saying something is POV without giving evidence is a waste of time for everyone here. Darknipples (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SEE WP:SUBPOV


 * "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism, and Criticism of the Bible, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors." - Darknipples (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Trump was furious"
User:Anythingyouwant added the following sentence to the lede: Trump was furious that Comey would not publicly say (until after being fired) that Trump was not under investigation.[27] It's now the second sentence in the last paragraph of the lede. I think it should be removed - maybe added to the "Comey dismissal" section, which currently doesn't mention it, but not in the lede. 1) Of the various reasons given for dismissing Comey, this one was way down the list (as far as the importance given to it by sources or the players involved), so it's kind of trivial for the lede. 2) Also, it interrupts the important link between "Comey was fired" and the evidence that the Russian investigation was the reason. (This article is about the Russian investigation after all.) 3) And of course, when we have new information we want to add, we are supposed to add it to the article, not the lede. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree that this doesn't belong in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, User:MelanieN. You seem to be suggesting that we keep in the lead an accusation by multiple FBI insiders that the firing was meant to stop the whole Russia investigation, whereas you want to delete that Trump was "furious" about a specific aspect of that investigation: that Trump had not been publicly cleared.  This would make for an extremely slanted presentation on our part.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the "FBI insiders" claim either. (Is it in the article? If not it doesn't belong in the lede.) I would prefer to cite Trump: that many people have interpreted Trump's subsequent statements as saying that the Russia investigation was at least part of his reason for the dismissal. (Details in the article.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with and . See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY  - Darknipples (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (ed) Checking: the "FBI insiders" claim is not in the article, so it should be removed from the lede. The article does describe, in detail, the comments by Trump that connected the firing to the Russia investigation. That should be added to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that Anythingyouwant has now removed both things from the lede: the "furious" sentence and the "FBI insiders" sentence. Now we need to talk about whether to add to the lede the fact that Trump himself has hinted that the firing was related to the Russia investigation. (BTW if you want to put the "Trump was furious" sentence into the Comey firing section (without taking away from Trump's own comments about the connection), I don't think anyone will object.) I see you already did. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have added that..&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And you added Trump's own explanation to the lede, as suggested. I have modified it slightly, hope you don't mind. If we are going by what Trump himself said in connection with the firing, it was the investigation itself ("that's gone away taken off"), not his reported anger about the stories suggesting a connection to him. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump said: "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story." We can quote that explicitly in the lead if you prefer.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted so I guess you minded. 0;-D No, I don't want any direct quotes in the lede. But to me both of his comments (particularly where he said to the Russians, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. ... I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off." but also the one you quote, when he said he was thinking about "this made up story" in connection with firing Comey - I think he was talking about the investigation itself, that the allegation itself was a "made-up story"; he wasn't talking about the newspaper stories.) What do others think? For comparison: Anything's sentence, currently in the article, is Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to dissatisfaction with the story about himself and Russian interference in the election.[29][27] My modification was Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to his dissatisfaction with the investigation into Russian interference in the election.[29][27] A small difference. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump being Trump, neither of those two quotes is crystal clear, and different people have interpreted them in different ways. The folks at National Review (Andy McCarthy, Rich Lowry) interpret it to mean that Trump fired Comey to stop the stories and leaks and insinuations that Trump was being investigated for collusion.  Other people interpret those quotes differently.  But there are further quotes where Trump has made very clear that he wants the investigation to go on, even if it finds wrongdoing by his "satellites".  Would you like me to make a list?  He was not dissatisfied with the investigation as a whole, only with the cloud of suspicion that was hanging over his head given that Comey refused to say he wasn't being investigated.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's just look at the source material provided, and try to shed light some light on what the sources actually say, shall we?

1.[29] ''May 9: Trump fires Comey. The original explanation is that it was due to how Comey handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation — and was based on the recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. -- May 10: In an Oval Office meeting, Trump spoke with Russian officials about Comey. "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," he told them, according to The New York Times. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." -- May 11: '''In interview with NBC's Lester Holt, Trump said he planned on firing Comey regardless of what Rosenstein recommended. And he suggested the Russia investigation was a reason behind the dismissal'''. "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story."''
 * (current version) Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to dissatisfaction with the story about himself and Russian interference in the election.[29][27]

2.[27] James Comey, the former FBI director, said he told President Donald Trump on three occasions that he wasn't the subject of a counterintelligence investigation, but Trump was upset that Comey would not say so publicly, according to Comey's prepared written testimony -- Comey also said the main reason he did not publicly announce that Trump was not part of the bureau's Russia probe was that "it would create a duty to correct, should that change." -- ''Comey wrote in the testimony. "He (Trump) said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. -- Trump seemed agitated that Comey did not publicly confirm he was not under investigation, according to the testimony. "He repeatedly told me, 'We need to get that fact out,'" Comey said. "I did not tell the president that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change."''
 * I think we should include that Trump originally claimed he fired Comey over the way he handled Clinton's emails, but later recanted, by saying he fired Comey because Comey would not say publicly that Trump was not under investigation, as the sources clearly state. Darknipples (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We do say that at the article Dismissal of James Comey. In contrast, Comey's handling of Clinton's emails is not really within the scope of this article, much less the lead of this article.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain why this is not "within the scope of this article". If that is the case, it should just be omitted altogether, or, redirect to the Dismissal of James Comey article. Darknipples (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comey's handling of Clinton's emails is very tenuously related to Russian interference in the election. Trump gave a whole bunch of reasons for firing Comey, including the reasons described in Rosenstein's detailed memo to Trump, and many more, such as Coney purportedly being a "grandstander".  If we put Clinton into this lead then why not put in gtandstander too?  Because we should stick to the Russia stuff.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess can capitulate to your point as far as Clinton's email's, but something should be included from source [27] regarding Comey's testimony that he (Comey) refused to state publicly that Trump was not under investigation, and why (see 2. above). Here is my suggested edit...
 * Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to his dissatisfaction that Comey had not yet made any public statements that Trump was not under investigation.
 * ...Or something to that effect, as not to omit such a central detail of the source material. - Darknipples (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Trump never said that. The notion that "Trump was furious at Comey for not saying publicly..." was offered as a reason for the firing by anonymous third parties, not by Trump. Trump himself seemed to talk only about the investigation - and his relief that the pressure was off. Insofar as you can ever tell what Trump is talking about. (Some people claim that Trump "admitted" he did it because of the investigation, but that is reading far more into his comments than he actually said. At most he hinted at it.) And let's take reference 27 out of the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the problem, it is a simple mis-attribution on my part. Comey is the one that "indicated" this according to the source, so it is in no way an "anonymous third party" as you put it. Let me re-phrase.
 * Comey indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to his refusal to make any public statements that Trump was not under investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknipples (talk • contribs)
 * Comey also says he "takes the president at his word" that he was fired because of the investigation. I think we should not put in the lede what Comey (or anyone other than Trump) thought was the reason. The Comey thinking can go into the article but not the lede IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Darknipples (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's what I decided to go with. Darknipples (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, on May 8, Trump tweeted "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?" The next day he wrote to Comey, "I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.” And, Comey's testimony included this: "In one conversation, Trump suggested that if there were some ‘satellite’ associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY I think MelanieN is right. If you would like to add these quotes, start in the appropriate section, i.e. here -->. Darknipples (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest putting any of them anywhere in the article. Feel free to do so if you wish.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Good, looks like we are all in agreement on that question. We got kind of far afield from my question about the small difference between Anything's version of the Trump sentence and mine. Anything's sentence, currently in the article, is Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to dissatisfaction with the story about himself and Russian interference in the election.[29][27] My modification was Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to his dissatisfaction with the investigation into Russian interference in the election.[29][27] A small difference, basically whether he fired him because of the investigation itself, or because of the stories. Any thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You overlook and seek to delete the word "himself". That word suggests that perhaps he was firing Comey not merely because of the Russian interference or because of stories about the Russia interference, but because of stories linking him to the Russian interference.  My paraphrase more closely follows what Trump actually said, whereas the other paraphrase is completely inconsistent not just with what Trump said to Lester Holt but also with what Trump said to Comey about "satellite" associates.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess you're emphasizing what he said to Holt, or what Comey said he said, while I'm emphasizing what he said to the Russians. --MelanieN (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think both are still somewhat disingenuous. We should try to be as comprehensive as possible to maintain WP:NPOV. Trump has his version(s), Comey has his, and so on, and so forth. I am not used to working on articles this size, and, this contemporaneous. If we look at the body to decide where the emphasis should lie, we should do a basic summation of the entire section 2017 developments, instead of just a blurb about Comey's dismissal. Either that, or "table" the entire addition by Anythingyouwant for the time being. Darknipples (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Before I edited the lead, it said: "On May 9, 2017, in a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the Russian investigation by the FBI...." That is POV-pushing.  It contradicts secondary sources as well as primary sources, and is unfaithful to the cited source.  Removal of the POV-pushing is my primary concern.  As for what Trump said to Lavrov and Kislyak, wasn't it merely that the pressure would abate?  And wouldn't the pressure abate if it became publicly known that Comey had said Trump was not under investigation?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a mere attribution can help alleviate POV in that kind of situation. The problem is we shouldn't be so focused on the lead, as we are now. However, when I made that suggestion to you, you acted as though it made no difference, and basically suggested I do it for you. My point is, if you care so much about the lead in this article, maybe put some work into the body? Darknipples (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I inserted an attribution to FBI insiders, along with balancing information, and was told that we should instead focus on what Trump said. And then when I focused on what Trump said, there were objections to that.  So I am kind of tired of taking the lead here and getting shot down every time.  I am simply saying that I strongly oppose the lead stuff that was there prior to my edits, whether it's got inline attribution or not, because it is not neutral.  It's also perfectly acceptable AFAIK to make the lead how we think it ought to be and then conform the article body.  WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is not a policy or guideline, and is not unequivocal either.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It comes from Writing better articles, and has more to do with the spirit of WP policy and guidelines, rather than the letter of them. So, you can absolutely dismiss it, along with the advice and opinions of other editors here, like myself. That's just not what I would recommend, since, as you put it, tends to put (you) at odds with Consensus. Good luck with that. Darknipples (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, I really have no idea what the consensus is here, or what you are proposing the lead should say or what you are proposing the article body should say. I also don't see why we can't discuss the lead and the article body at the same time, but if you want to focus exclusively on the article body then that's fine with me.  What are you proposing the article body should say about Trump's reasons for firing Comey?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly what you've been trying to include, along with their respective RS. The Trump quotes would obviously go in the Donald Trump section... That Trump was "furious" about a specific aspect of that investigation: that Trump had not been publicly cleared, would obviously (possibly?) go under the Dismissal of FBI director James Comey section. I'm sure it will eventually help create a less POV lead for you. Darknipples (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is the material that apparently you think ought to go into the article: Please feel free to insert into the article wherever you think is most appropriate. Is that okay?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On May 8, Trump tweeted "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?"
 * The next day he wrote to Comey, "I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
 * Comey's testimony included this: "In one conversation, Trump suggested that if there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out."
 * Trump was furious that Comey would not publicly say (until after being fired) that Trump was not under investigation.
 * The dismissal was seen by multiple FBI insiders as an attempt to curtail their Russian investigation.
 * Let's call it a good start. Darknipples (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference
Started a new article that I see as important and needs development and some more content. It is here: Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference.Casprings (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Another POV fork? You could at least try to give the article a non-POV-sounding name. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is enough content available for an article and his Interference into the investigations is both historic and WP:N.Casprings (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's not enough material for a separate article. It should be a part of a general article on the FBI investigation. All these POV forks with absurdly POV names are making a mockery of Wikipedia. Can you imagine if Republicans made corresponding articles on Wikipedia with names like "Hillary Clinton's destruction of emails relevant to an FBI investigation"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have the former director of the FBI under oath saying that POTUS asked him to lay off a target of an FBI investigation. In regards to historical significance, this is apples and nuclear bombs.Casprings (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They're only apples and oranges if you come at it from a particular political angle. If you're trying to write a neutral encyclopedia, you don't write a separate article about each week's development in some political affair, and you don't give articles ridiculous titles like "Bill Clinton's inappropriate meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch while she was investigating his wife." -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Thucydides on everything except that the name sounds like POV pushing. I think it's an unencyclopedic name, but the attribution to Trump doesn't really strike me as POVish because there's no question whether or not Trump is the one accused of interfering. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are my thoughts from the deletion discussion. Delete AND Merge ALL the content into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Donald Trump because it is about Donald Trump's alleged cover-up/ reactions to investigations of the accusations of collusion by him and his campaign members. It's important to parse this matter properly. This does not relate to whether Trump and Co. actually colluded with Russia. It relates to whether Trump and Co. are impeding the investigation. That is a solid fact. He has done (1) nothing to help the investigation, and (2) everything to deny and impede it, and those two aspects can be documented with myriad RS. There can be no doubt that this is a very notable subject. It is currently an alleged cover-up. Some see very strong evidence for a cover-up, and others are doubtful if that term is proper, but there is plenty of interference occurring. As that section grows, it can be split off into a sub-article with an appropriate title. The current title is too strong and inflammatory, but that will likely change fairly soon. When that happens, the title can be changed. Right now I'd suggest Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It may also be appropriate to merge the content to here: Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections BTW, "POV title" is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason to tweak the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And further to that it is ridiculous to assert that the underlying events are "a political matter" rather than, as RS tell us, a matter of US national security and a counterespionage investigation relating to an attack on the US and other Western governments by a hostile foreign power.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * can you think of a single topic in the universe of politics where one could not write, "it is ridiculous to assert that the underlying events are "a political matter" rather than, as RS tell us, a matter of (replace with literally anything at all)?" -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. And if you did not mean to say that they are exclusively or primarily "a political matter" it would be helpful if you'd qualify, modify, or elucidate your words above. SPECIFICO  talk  20:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with lede changes
Disagree with these lede changes.

Much has happened since the old RFC.

We should keep the lede, as it was, due to all the developments since then.

Looks like lots of sourced material was removed in the edit:.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede is in line with the proposal at the RfC. If we think it needs tweaking we can do that. It looks to me as if the latest developments are included. The main problem I see is one of style: too long and too many citations for a lede section. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seven paragraphs ??????????? Sagecandor (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We need to work on that: are there details that could be omitted? Are there paragraphs that could be combined? --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's now five paragraphs - just by dint of combining similar subjects together and eliminating duplication. That's still one paragraph longer than guidelines so we can continue to work on it. As for eliminating details: IMO there is way too much specificity of exactly who said what and when. That is all in the article. The lede should summarize. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I simply judged what the community consensus was and it appeared to favor the proposed lead section. Unfortunately neither of you participated in the survey so I couldn't take your objections into mind when determining consensus. Time to drop the stick. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 18:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not criticizing your close, or the version you put into the article. Its overall thrust is fine. There are some tweaks that can be made, hopefully without needing another whole RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've placed the POV tag up however, based on the discussion that's ongoing below. -Darouet (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry man but this issue over the title is a dead horse at this point. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 20:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

BBC, Reuters, and French, German and Spanish wikis still appropriately treat interference as an allegation, not fact


I earlier pointed out that the BBC and Reuters have consistently treated the possibility of Russian interference in the US election as just that - a possibility or allegation - and not as a fact. Our insistence on ignoring these sources has caused many editors to complain, since the neutral titles adopted by other language wikis are able to summarize the topic without leading a reader to any particular conclusion:


 * French: Accusations of Russian interference in the American presidential election of 2016


 * Spanish: Accusations of Russian interference in the presidential elections of the United States in 2016


 * German: Hacking Affair between Russia and the USA in 2016

The BBC and Reuters are still maintaining the policy they've always had, treating this as an allegation:


 * June 7 : "...House of Representatives probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election..."


 * June 8 : "...Committee hearing on Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election..."


 * June 4 : "...amid allegations of possible Russian interference in the 2016 election..."


 * June 8 : "...agency's investigation of possible collusion by Trump's campaign with Russia's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election..."


 * June 7 : "...Clapper testifies about potential Russian interference in the presidential election..."


 * June 9 : "...the investigation into possible Russian interference in the US election..."


 * 8 June : "...Senate Intelligence Committee on alleged Russian interference in the US election..."


 * June 7 : "...the FBI is investigating Russia's alleged interference in the US election..."

Plain and simply put, when these major world news sources describe this topic with a few words, they write "alleged interference" or "possible interference," not "interference," unless paraphrasing American officials. We can pretend the earth doesn't rotate around the sun all we want, Eppur si muove. -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please outline the objective search methodology that you used to identify these sources, and only these sources, out of thousands of others. Or shall we assume that you cherry picked them again?- MrX 19:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * they weren't cherry-picked last time. I provided a link to my last post: please provide a diff demonstrating cherry-picking last time if one exists. If not, please AGF and strike your comment. Admittedly, last time I was far more careful to look over every article written over a period of months; this time I spent less time, but since the results were the same, I didn't delve further. I invite you to look more carefully if you wish.
 * Methodologically, this time I went to bbc.com and searched for "Russian interference," filtering so as to only look at "news" results . I looked at articles from the last week. For reuters I more or less did the same thing, except I searched through google. Last time I searched only through reuters and the bbc internally, and I not only searched for "Russian interference," but also "Russian hacking." Also, last time I noted when I found 1-2 articles that didn't write "possible" or "alleged" in the BBC's / Reuter's voice, and provided links to those. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. I listen to BBC news every day, which is why I was aware of this phenomenon. When I did my careful survey previously, I pointed out that they appear to maintain this editorial policy across all media platforms and programs. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So you didn't cherry pick the articles, you cherry picked the news agencies. You selected two out of hundreds of others news publishers, and they coincidentally support the your view that the Russian interference is nothing more than an allegation. I'm sorry, but that does not qualify as objective methodology.- MrX 19:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that Washington Post and New York Times write about this as a fact, not possibility or simply allegation. Do you acknowledge that the BBC and Reuters do not simply treat interference as a fact, but as a possibility and allegation? -Darouet (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We're been over this before. Most news agencies treat the interference as an accepted fact, even if you disqualify the Washington Post and New York Times. We have to look at a broad range of reputable sources, not an exceedingly narrow range.- MrX 19:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I see some confusion in this discussion.

Members of the news media do not typically use the terms "fact" and "allegation" in the ordinary sense in which they are being used on this talk page.

Whether such and such a thing is true or not makes that thing a fact or not. If it is true, it is a fact. If it is not true, it is not a fact, at least in the context of the way a member of the news media would typically look at this.

An allegation, in this particular context, means an "assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence". The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 94, Houghton Mifflin Company (Second Coll. Ed. 1985).

To allege something means "to assert without proof or before proving ". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 30, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976) (bolding added).

If something has been "alleged," that something has been "Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved ". The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 94, Houghton Mifflin Company (Second Coll. Ed. 1985).

In short, if I say "Bill killed Joe", that is an allegation -- regardless of whether the statement true or false. If in fact Bill did kill Joe, my statement "Bill killed Joe" is still an allegation, since I have not provided any proof at the time I made my statement.

If in fact Bill did kill Joe, and even if in fact I actually have the proof in my possession, my statement that "Bill killed Joe is still an allegation -- because -- again-- I have not yet provided the proof at the time I made the statement''.

The fact that a statement is true, and even the fact that I have proof in my possession that the statement is true, does not make a statement "not be" an allegation.

An allegation is a statement that is provided without providing proof that the statement is true. Members of the news media (of which I am one) typically use the term "alleged" in this way. Famspear (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * PS: I should have said "Members of the news media (of which I am formerly one)...." Famspear (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That is all true. We can (like the German, French and Spanish wikis, and the BBC, and Reuters) describe the interference as alleged, while simultaneously leaving open the possibility that the interference really did happen. However, the phrases "potential interference," "possible interference," "possible hacking," etc. by the BBC and Reuters indicate that they treat this both as an allegation and a possibility. -Darouet (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Another point: Not everyone in the media uses the term "alleged" consistently. Various media sources may well treat a given statement as reflecting an "accepted" fact -- essentially, as having been "proved," so that there is thought to be very little risk to the writer's credibility by (and very little risk of legal liability for) omitting the word "allegedly." I cannot speak for all members or former members of the media. Certainly, many statements found in the media are treated by members of the media as accepted or as proved, even though those statements may technically be allegations in the denotative sense that I have explained above (that is, where the writer is offering no proof at the time the statement is made). Famspear (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To add to your comments (I have also worked as a reporter in the past): Media sources almost never use the word "fact", but they also avoid "alleged" unless they think there are legal ramifications. What they do is state something and attribute it to a source. For a named source: "Lorem ipsum dolor," according to chief engineer Firstname Lastname. For an unnamed source: "Lorem ipsum dolor," according to several senior White House officials. The headline will simply be "Lorem ipsum dolor" without the attributions. And that is exactly what Wikipedia is doing here: in virtually every sentence of the article, we specify who says so. And the article title summarizes the content while omitting the attributions. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In discussions here, we've reviewed title possibilities that resemble those used by the German, French and Spanish wikis, and which summarize the allegations without implying their veracity or otherwise. All those wikis aptly summarize the subject while avoiding a POVTITLE. Here, a majority - never a large one - insisted on the present title while arguing in effect that Reuters and the BBC are wrong, and that interference is a fact, full stop. That is, the title at present is meant to convey that interference is a fact, not a possibility. There has always been a lot of opposition to this title and I bring up Reuters and the BBC to highlight that, however likely we may think interference is, two of the largest world news outlets insist on treating interference as an allegation and possibility, not a fact. We can do the same, while being careful to also assiduously source all statements in the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is not what "we" think. The point is how Reliable Sources are handling the subject. Most of them are not saying "alleged". A few are. We go with the weight of the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been active at this page since it was started, and I never saw a review to demonstrate what you're writing above. On the contrary the page was started much like "Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference:" with a title making a full-throated declaration of fact, for an issue that was and remains highly contentious. I'm furthermore deeply skeptical that for a very political, contentious topic - where major media are disagreed and numerous individuals are accused of substantial crimes - that one could cite a plurality or even majority of newspapers in order to convert a possibility into a fact. -Darouet (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What we have here is statements by multiple parties (the intelligence agencies) that say they are in possession of convincing evidence, which they can't share publicly for national security reasons. That line of reasoning makes sense. Does that mean we have to forever regard them as liars, or at least potential liars, since they cannot show their evidence to the world? In my opinion the reliable sources here are the intelligence agencies themselves. They do have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy", and they have a valid reason for not showing us the evidence they find so convincing. Most media sources (which also have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy) have accepted their affirmation as sufficient to describe this interference as a fact. Some (BBC and Reuters) have not. I continue to think we should go with the majority of Reliable Sources and call it "interference" in Wikipedia's voice. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * where is the Wikipedia policy that treats American intelligence agencies as reliable sources? Does that policy extend to Russian and Iranian intelligence sources? As far as I know, newspapers, academic journals and books, and so forth are our guide, not intelligence agencies. In any event this is an international, and not an American governmental encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Melanie: The fallacy in your reasoning is that you seem to think that by using the word "alleged", we are "regarding them as liars." That is incorrect.


 * Even in the case of a reliable source that has a reputation for fact checking, Wikipedia itself cannot take a position as to who is "right" and who is "wrong". One reliable source may say "X is true" and another reliable source may say "X is false." The job of Wikipedia is to present both sides without Wikipedia itself taking a position.


 * As you seem to suggest, a possible solution is to have the article state something like "source X asserts A is true" and "source Y asserts A is false" (without using the word "alleged"). Famspear (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * it is true that the term used by Reuters and the BBC conveys uncertainty, perhaps appropriately, but is also perfectly consistent with interference having actually occurred. -Darouet (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And in fact that is exactly what our article does. From the very first sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I misunderstood you. We say, from the very first sentence, "who says so" about Russian interference. Are you saying we need to put a denial in the lede also? Denial from who - Putin? Is he a reliable source? I don't think any reliable source has asserted that this is untrue. Which is why our article takes the approach it does. The job of Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources say. We don't have to "present both sides" with equal weight when one side is overwhelmingly supported by reliable sources and the other is a non-reliable, self-serving claim from one person. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This horse has been beaten so many times it is fossilized. We have exhaustively discussed this before, and the current title is fine. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point we don't seem to be talking about the title (at least I hope not; as you say, that issue is settled). We are talking about whether the article itself is POV, as it is currently tagged. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out elsewhere, I believe this article may fall into the WP:SUBPOV category. Darknipples (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how other Wikis choose to phrase things. They aren't usable as sources for a reason, and in my own experience I've seen some of them used for overt propaganda (as a general rule, the smaller the Wiki, the easier to subvert). So as I see it that argument goes nowhere. Reuters and the BBC are reliable and therefore a different matter but as has been pointed out they are only some of the reliable sources available and it hasn't been convincingly demonstrated that the examples given weren't cherry picked. What I think is important here is that we have been discussing this for months now. While it appears increasingly likely that Russia was behind the election interference, the number of editors participating in this debate looks to be dwindling due to WP:EXHAUSTION and so even if Darouet's suggestion here were to cease being opposed, I would still reject it as being against consensus because most everyone isn't bothering to reply to it anymore. There reaches a point where it's clear that an argument isn't getting traction. Geogene (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with plenty of what you say, and would not propose to implement some momentary consensus favoring the caution of Reuters and the BBC without involvement by editors who've been very active here and supported the current title. -Darouet (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This article ignores two of the pillars of Wikipedia: verifiability and neutrality. TFD (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been asserted several times above that most reliable sources treat Russian interference as a proven fact, and that BBC and Reuters are in the minority. I've been following the discussion on this talk page for months, and I've never seen anyone make a convincing argument for that assertion. The editors who think that it's the case should either show that it is, or stop making the claim.

The fullest discussion I've found of this issue in the talk page archives is here. What I think that discussion shows is that in addition to BBC and Reuters, the Associated Press (one of the largest wire services), Le Monde (the French newspaper of record) and Süddeutsche Zeitung (the German newspaper of record) regularly treat "Russian interference" as an allegation or possibility, but not as a proven fact. There were several other news agencies (NBC, CNBC, Financial Times, Chicago Tribune) that were quoted in that thread calling "Russian interference" an allegation (or something equivalent). Once we have all these major news outlets treating Russian interference as an unproven allegation, we have to have a really good reason to overrule them and decide to present it as a proven fact.

I can't express strongly enough how fundamentally I disagree with you about intelligence agencies being reliable sources. No intelligence agency, whether the FSB, CIA, Mukhbarat, FBI, Mossad, MOIS, or the ISI is a WP:RS. If you want to argue that a particular nation's intelligence agencies are reliable sources, take it straight to Jimbo, because that would be a fundamental turnaround in how Wikipedia operates. In my opinion, it would destroy Wikipedia's credibility. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then let me put it this way: The sources that we DO regard as reliable - published media with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking - are mostly accepting the intelligence community's assessments, citing the intelligence community as the source, and not hedging their reporting with "alleged" or similar "we aren't sure about this" hedges. Such media use many sources for what they publish. Some of their sources are named, some are anonymous (anonymous to us readers, that is; the reporters and editors know who they are). They always vet their sources before publishing the material they get from them. In this case they appear to accept the intelligence agencies as a source they can rely on in their publishing. And we report what they publish. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody here has established that most reliable sources accept the claims of American intelligence agencies about Russian interference. However, we have established that some of the largest news agencies in the world, BBC, Reuters and Associated Press, along with many other highly respected news outlets (like Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Financial Times, NBC and CNBC) commonly use explicit hedging language (like "alleged" or "possible") when describing "Russian interference." Please don't repeat the claim that most reliable sources treat the claims of US intelligence as proven fact, unless you can actually show that this is the case. From the discussion we've had so far, that "most" doesn't include a whole host of major news outlets. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are the investigations of Flynn and Kushner not mentioned in the lead?
My addition of Flynn and Kushner to lead was reverted. Both Flynn and Kushner are being investigated for their ties to Russia. Am I missing something?- MrX 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The place where you inserted their names was referring to an investigation by FinCEN and other agencies into financial ties with Russia, where only Manafort, Page and Stone were named; I was even surprised that there were not more people in that one! The source you added relates to Kushner failing to declare some meetings, it's a relatively minor point and it's not clear whether he is under FBI investigation: not lead-worthy. However, I agree that Flynn should be mentioned in the lead, but in a different sentence and with a different source. — JFG talk 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We should not limit the scope in the lead, we should touch on investigations by any agencies and congress of any notable people. The presence of minor figures and the absence of major figures like Flynn and Kushner is conspicuous. I believe Kushner should be mentioned. Here is what one source says:
 * and
 * - MrX 17:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm losing sight of the subject of this article. Is it about everything Trump-Russia related, or about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Russian interference may have included contacts and possible collusion with members of the Trump team, so that kind of interaction is a natural part of the investigation into "Russian interference". That has been the FBI's approach, and it will almost certainly be Mueller's. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thucydides is right: the suspicions about Kushner belong in the article on links between Trump associates and Russian officials; no source has alleged he was involved in the Russian interference, which is the subject of this article. And if Mr. Kushner was looking for alternate communication channels with Russia in December, this would by definition rule out that he had such channels earlier, when the Russians reportedly interfered. — JFG talk 21:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're making this too easy:
 * - MrX 22:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What your exact same sources also say:
 * So, Kushner is not a target of the investigation, ergo mentioning him is still undue for the lead. This is fun. I appreciate the sportsmanship! — JFG talk 22:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there an article to cover the financial ties having nothing to do with the election? That page would hold Kushner and the Russian banks, and Manafort and Flynn's payments received. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He "is now a subject in the FBI's investigation of Russia's election interference". That seem clear enough. I didn't say he was a target, nor is that relevant for determining whether something is WP:DUE. This belongs in this article and should be mentioned in the lead because of Kushner's high-profile role, and his suspicious activities with Russian's which he concealed.- MrX 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "subject" and "target" are indeed different words. The sources indicate that he may be questioned as a witness, and is not accused of anything. Bundling him with people who are actually suspected of wrongdoing would not only be a misrepresentation of sources, it would also be a BLP violation. Placing such accusations in the lead would only make matters worse. I believe that the current mentions of Kushner in the article body are largely sufficient. — JFG talk 06:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What your exact same sources also say:
 * So, Kushner is not a target of the investigation, ergo mentioning him is still undue for the lead. This is fun. I appreciate the sportsmanship! — JFG talk 22:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there an article to cover the financial ties having nothing to do with the election? That page would hold Kushner and the Russian banks, and Manafort and Flynn's payments received. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He "is now a subject in the FBI's investigation of Russia's election interference". That seem clear enough. I didn't say he was a target, nor is that relevant for determining whether something is WP:DUE. This belongs in this article and should be mentioned in the lead because of Kushner's high-profile role, and his suspicious activities with Russian's which he concealed.- MrX 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "subject" and "target" are indeed different words. The sources indicate that he may be questioned as a witness, and is not accused of anything. Bundling him with people who are actually suspected of wrongdoing would not only be a misrepresentation of sources, it would also be a BLP violation. Placing such accusations in the lead would only make matters worse. I believe that the current mentions of Kushner in the article body are largely sufficient. — JFG talk 06:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He "is now a subject in the FBI's investigation of Russia's election interference". That seem clear enough. I didn't say he was a target, nor is that relevant for determining whether something is WP:DUE. This belongs in this article and should be mentioned in the lead because of Kushner's high-profile role, and his suspicious activities with Russian's which he concealed.- MrX 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "subject" and "target" are indeed different words. The sources indicate that he may be questioned as a witness, and is not accused of anything. Bundling him with people who are actually suspected of wrongdoing would not only be a misrepresentation of sources, it would also be a BLP violation. Placing such accusations in the lead would only make matters worse. I believe that the current mentions of Kushner in the article body are largely sufficient. — JFG talk 06:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions calls it "Russian interference in the 2016 election"


US Attorney General Jeff Sessions calls it "Russian interference in the 2016 election"

File:Sessions on Russian interference in the 2016 election.jpeg

Seems pretty close to the title of this Wikipedia article, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections".

Sagecandor (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, and it was one election, but nobody seems to care. Sessions also does not treat the intervention as fact: he writes "issues related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election", and I'm sure nobody cares either. — JFG talk 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He uses the exact phrase, "investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election". Sagecandor (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure: there is an investigation, which found nothing more than the DNC email leaks and RT biased reporting; after a year of screaming "Russia stole the election" from every rooftop, it's a bit light. But at least, it makes for some fun wiki-editing… Next episode tomorrow, apparently. — JFG talk 17:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Found nothing" ? Your POV betrays you... Sagecandor (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * is accurately describing the "findings" in the published US intelligence reports. They "found" the DNC email leaks and biased reporting from RT, and provided, of course, basically no convincing evidence tying Russian intelligence services to the DNC email leaks. Maybe they have evidence they can't release, but then again, maybe they have nothing. We simply don't know. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What have they found? It's nearly impossible to tell from our article. Would be much simpler if we could have a section called "Findings." Mr Ernie (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a great idea! Could you perhaps write the beginnings of such a "Findings" section using the trove of RS already cited in the article? — JFG talk 21:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To put it frankly I'm not able to do that. I wasn't able to find such clearly described findings in the RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Me neither, that's the whole point! We write megabytes of articles and talk page threads with very little underlying substance. At least it's entertaining! — JFG talk 22:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't cut off my words: I wrote that the investigation into Russian meddling "found nothing more than the DNC email leaks and RT biased reporting". I don't think that's a POV view, it's just facts. I have been looking for other documented actions to interfere in the US presidential election, by Russia or others, and I have seen nothing else of substance over the last 12 months. If you have some sources showing other significant actions against the US electoral process, apart from inside politics, I would be delighted to read them and add relevant information to this article. — JFG talk 21:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the article accurately describes the unanimous high confidence of the entire United State Intelligence Community. Sagecandor (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed: they have "concluded with high confidence" that Russia interfered with an "influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and undermine public faith in the US democratic process". In other words, Russia stole and leaked the DNC emails, and spread anti-Clinton news via RT and online trolls. Exactly what I stated, "nothing more". What else has been attributed to Russian influence? I genuinely would love to find out. — JFG talk 21:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, in your "view" (and Mr Ernie's of course) the entire article would be summed up as "Russia stole and leaked the DNC emails, and spread anti-Clinton news via RT and online trolls....nothing more."?...That's neat. Darknipples (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth, and please don't deliberately mischaracterize my view. This article is called "Russian interference.." but is pretty light on the meat and potatoes ie actual descriptions of the interference. It would be great to have a section to distill those down and clearly lay out the supposed interference. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please accept my humble apology, I misread the thread and have since decided it best to strike that portion of my comment. Darknipples (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Marc Kasowitz Trump’s Personal Lawyer Boasted That He Got Preet Bharara Fired
Needs to be included. Also has Russian ties. Maybe a section on him? https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-personal-lawyer-boasted-that-he-got-preet-bharara-fired Casprings (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing anything in the link about Kasowitz having Russian ties. Also his past boasts about getting Preet Bharara fired are not relevent to this article. PackMecEng (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Any Russia ties would be relevant here. Involvement in obstruction would be more relevant in Trump's attempts to interfere with the investigation, as he works at Trump's direction, as have all Trump's associates. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if he actually said it, this may not be about Russia at all. Kasowitz is Trump's personal lawyer, and the district where Bharara was working is where Trump's headquarters is. It might well have been something to do with Trump or his businesses, and nothing to do with Russia at all. Anyhow that's speculation. We need more confirmation and additional sources, and if we add this to Wikipedia somewhere, there is no particular reason to suggest it should be to this article. Isn't there an article about the firing of the US attorneys? That's where it should go at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose it here: Talk:2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Bingo! "The office is also looking into Russian money-laundering allegations at Deutsche Bank, Trump’s principal private lender." --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added it to the Kasowitz and Bharara articles. There doesn't seem to be a place for it in the "dismissal" article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known
Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known

BullRangifer (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an important source. We need to make sure that is intergrated.Casprings (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
The subsection labeled "Russian Institute for Strategic Studies" begins by attributing some claims to US intelligence officials, the but rest of the section is written in a way that sounds like those officials' claims are being stated in Wikipedia's authoritative voice. I added attribution and appropriate modifiers signifying that these claims are, at this point, unsubstantiated: diff.

reverted my edit: diff. Are you simply reverting every edit I make to the article? That's what it seems like at this point. Your edit summary doesn't make any sense: "Rv pov synth insinuation. Use talk." None of what I added could possibly be interpreted as WP:SYNTH, even if you disagree with my edit. Here's what SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I didn't insert any personal conclusions in my edit. I simply included the attribution that the Reuters article itself gives - to anonymous US intelligence officials. As for POV, I don't see how clear attribution of claims is a violation of WP:NPOV. In fact, clearly attributing claims is exactly what NPOV demands. Finally, my edit didn't "insinuate" anything. I noted the source of the claims. How is that an insinuation of anything, and if it is, what did I insinuate? I think you're just blindly reverting my edits at this point, and applying whatever random acronyms spring to mind. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC) :Actually, I was the one that originally reverted it, and for good reasons, as the sources were reliable and the content was relevant. I do, however, agree that we should not be using WP VOICE to represent the claims made, so, perhaps we should add some "according to" edits to help clarify this issue. As far as the NY article, perhaps even another sub-section that details and focus' on that point, if there is enough RS to support it. OOPS Darknipples (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * when you reverted, you explained that "those officials are already mentioned." However, JFG's point is that the text appears to be in Wikipedia's voice, not in the voice of officials, even if it's true that they are mentioned. I think it's reasonable to assume that an ordinary reader would understand


 * "The propaganda efforts began in March 2016. The first set of recommendations, issued in June 2016, proposed that Russia must support a candidate for U.S. president more favorable to Russia than Obama had been via a social media campaign and through Russia-backed news outlets. The second report was written in October 2016 when a Clinton win appeared likely. It advocated messages about voter fraud in order to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system and a Clinton presidency."


 * to be statements in Wikipedia's voice, and not coming from U.S. officials mentioned at the outset of the previous paragraph.


 * Similarly, even the sentence


 * "The development of strategy was ordered by Putin and directed by former officers of Russian Foreign Intelligence Service''


 * could easily be construed to be in Wikipedia's voice, whether intended or not. There's no reason to leave this ambiguous: we should just clearly attribute the statements. -Darouet (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As I have mentioned before, an attribution is sometimes the easiest way to alleviate POV, in certain situations. However, this diff by , is what prompted my involvement  in this article. I have not reviewed certain edits by , but I would kindly ask them to provide clarifications as to what transpired regarding SPECIFICO's diff diff. Was the word "allegedly" from the source, or was it inserted by (someone)? (The source seems to be Russian?)- Darknipples (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible COI editing in connection with Trump campaign staff
Just a notice, I am a bit concerned about the potential implications of this edit, in which a brand new account sought to have verifiable information removed from Carter Page about a connection between the Trump campaign and Russian interests close to the Kremlin. Keep an eye out for similar edits. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Make one section a subsection of another section
Shouldn't these two sections be combined? They are all part and parcel of the same thing, with the same prosecutorial team:
 * #Obstruction of justice investigation (make this a subsection of following section)
 * #Investigation by special counsel (make this the main section)

The only difference is that we have now learned that the team has been carrying on an obstruction of justice investigation, along with other types of investigations.

Proposed solution: One "Investigations by special counsel" section, with subsections for their various types of investigations, for example:


 * Investigations of ALLEGED financial crimes, money laundering, tax evasion, bribery in Russia and China, business activities with sanctioned individuals and banks using money from crime, using presidency for personal profit, revealing classified information to Russians, espionage, attempts to lift sanctions to enable collecting the promised 19% of Rosneft ($11 billion), payments for hacking of the DNC, collusion with Russians to steal the election, nondisclosure of meetings with Russians, lying about those meetings, and finally interference in ongoing investigations to the point of obstruction of justice. Note that they have already revealed they are using the dossier as their road map, so all the allegations in that dossier are legitimate loci for their investigations.

What do you think about the idea of subsections as they become known? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Perhaps a "Latest Developments" section could be utilized, with a time limit of about a week or so, at which time new information might be dis-proven or confirmed? Darknipples (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I support BullRangifer's suggestion. One investigation section, with subsections as needed. I would suggest that you boldly do it. With regard to Darknipples' suggestion, I don't think a "latest developments" section is a good idea. Wikipedia does not usually use expressions like "new", "currently", "latest", etc.; we are supposed to be time-independent. I do think that waiting a few days, or a week as suggested, before putting the latest information into the article is a good idea. That gives us time to determine if the issue is a here-today-gone-tomorrow news item or if it continues to receive significant coverage. That's an important consideration in the current atmosphere, where today's sensational development can overshadow or blot out yesterday's sensational development. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with Melanie: don't jump on the news or tweets of the day; insert a summary after a few days. — JFG talk 17:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly it should be split off into its own article. Unfortunately folks deleted one plausible candidate article that someone created.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:My very best wishes made a similar suggestion in the thread below called "Obstruction of justice investigation subsection". Maybe the two of you should get together. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, thanks, I would rather do something else. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)