Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 12

POV tag, again
has placed a POV tag at the top of the article because based on his "complaint about the declarative title, which he has argued is a WP:POVTITLE and not merited by sources"]. The matter of the title is already settled. Each time the same couple of editors have tried get "alleged" added to the title or lead, it has failed to gain consensus:

I, and many other editors on this page, have contended that most reliable sources refer to the election interference as an accepted fact. To support this claim with evidence, on April 11, I conducted a Google news search and looked at the top results here. I just now looked at the top ten news sources in a google search for election interference by Russia. None of them refer to the matter as alleged. Eight out of the ten sources do not refer to the election interference as alleged. As with the previous sampling, 80% of sources do not refer to the election interference as alleged. WP:NPOV advises "Using this ["claim"] or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another." This is further reinforced in WP:ALLEGED.

I am asking for the NPOV tag to be removed and for the WP:REHASHed proposals to add "alleged" to cease. Alternatively, I am asking for those supporting "alleged" to prove by showing unequivocally, by sampling, that most reliable sources refer to the election interference as alleged. - MrX 20:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Perhaps it is time to add an index of some kind to the top of the talk page, indicating issues that have already been discussed and beaten to death with a stick? Sagecandor (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is such an index at the Donald Trump article. See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus. It has worked well. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you scroll down in the thread you linked, you'll see that most of the sources you linked did not support your argument. I and other editors went through your sources one-by-one. Your strongest source was from Rachel Maddow's blog, which is not a WP:RS for anything other than her point of view. You made the fundamental methodological failure of assuming that if the single word "alleged" is not in an article, then the reliable source treats "Russian interference" as fact. Obviously, if a newspaper writes, "Officials said that X," the newspaper does not necessarily endorse the view X. Just to reiterate, your "80%" includes Rachel Maddow's blog, as well as articles along the lines of, "American intelligence officials said that ..."
 * The POV tag is absolutely justified here. You write that we've been over this issue over and over again, but every time we've been over the issue, you've failed to make a convincing argument and then declared victory. The issue hasn't been settled, which is why it keeps on coming up.
 * What we've established very clearly above is that the way this article is framed and written is at variance with a whole host of reliable sources, including some of the world's largest news agencies - BBC, Reuters and Associated Press. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would very much support a "current consensus" mechanism similar to what was set up at Talk:Donald Trump to compile the state of perennial discussions which have been settled. Unfortunately any settlements of content or POV disputes on this Russian interference article have not been documented. Shall we start? Which archived thread does settle the dispute over the Russian interference being called an allegation or a proven fact in reliable sources? Which thread shows that a majority of good-faith editors agree that the article abides by NPOV? Are there perhaps other disputes that were settled and we can document? This would certainly save editor time and effort. — JFG talk 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh, good idea,, but you're right, not sure myself what is settled and what is not. We'd have to base it on formal closed processes like completed RFCs. Sagecandor (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It is a bit disappointing that few POV disputes are actually settled. Even the scope of the article is still loosely defined… — JFG talk 21:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All we need is for an Admin to restore the "no reinstatement w/o consenus rule that is in place on the other ARBAP2 articles. I know many Admins watch this page so I think that would do trick w/o a lot of work on compiling that list. Anyway, without that rule it's not clear how the list would help.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you do a search, choose the top 10, 50, 100, or 1000 reliable sources, and let us know how many of them refer to the interference as "alleged". Your entire argument is not grounded in logic, policy, or evidence. "Variance with a whole host of reliable sources" is meaningless sophistry based on a biased sample. The evidence that I've presented shows that the top 10 news articles as of today support that 80% of sources do not say alleged. That happens to correlate closely with the previous sample in which approximately 78.6% of sources do not say alleged, even if we exclude Maddow's blog. Both 78.6% and 80% are a majority of sources, with a wide margin to spare.- MrX 21:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Last time we looked at a sample of sources, mid-April, in the above, we found that most of them correctly attributed the claims of interference to the US intelligence services. The debate then becomes: should Wikipedia take the CIA and NSA's words at face value? — JFG talk 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not up to us. It's up to the reliable sources reporting on the subject. If they take the CIA and NSA reports at face value, that's how we report it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with, Wikipedia policy is to rely on secondary reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody has yet shown here that most reliable sources take CIA and NSA claims at face value. All that's been established is that a significant number of the world's largest and most reliable news agencies don't take those claims at face value. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 80% (the vast majority) of reliable sources do not describe the election interference as alleged.- MrX 12:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. But most sources are actually cautious in attributing what they print; even the most anti-Trump sources are careful in their reporting, when you read beyond the catchy headlines. See for example my analysis of an NBC source cited by editors in support of the "most sources consider the Russian interference as an established fact" theory. — JFG talk 22:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources do not take police and secret intelligence service claims at face value, otherwise the guarantee of freedom of the press in First Amendment to the United States Constitution would have been superfluous. Why read the Washington Post to find out what is going on in Washington, when we can read the president's tweets?  TFD (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalposts? - Darknipples (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

When I last posted on this topic, some editors refused to even read the BBC and Reuters articles, or recognize their policy. This time at least editors are recognizing their policy, but referring to a media consensus that nobody has actually established. I think it's worthwhile to quote from 's previous evaluation of one source presented as a mainstream endorsement of interference as fact, not allegation:


 * NBC1 - Feb 17 2017 -Darknipples (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Since many of you were around then, you'll remember that this article was created much like Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference: declaring something to be true long before anyone (besides those who leaked the emails) could have been certain. We've been skirting around this conversation without actually having it for a very long time. -Darouet (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * " This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Deletion policy." - Darknipples (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Right now we cite some 25 news articles in the lead (excluding US intelligence statements). I'd like to see how each of them treats the matter of fact / allegation / attribution. -Darouet (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do we not just say alleged (it is after all pretty much at this time still an allegation) and be done with this?Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At "this" time? - Darknipples (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And when it changes then we can re title, and no one would be able to raise (what is "at this time") a valid point.11:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 80% (the vast majority) of reliable sources do not describe the election interference as alleged.- MrX 11:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They do. What seems to confuse you is that after saying the allegations are alleged they describe them without additional qualification. It's fairly standard for news media to refer to allegations as allegations when no evidence has been provided and even once it has but has not been proved in court.  TFD (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I note that the arguments for adding alleged to the title are becoming increasingly nonsensical. Wikipedia is not a court. News agencies are not courts. I cited the top 10 sources as of yesterday, and only two describe the interference as alleged. Please let me know if see the some form of the word 'allege' juxtaposed with 'Russia election interference' anywhere in the other eight sources.- MrX 13:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating that, even though it was shown to you to be wrong a long time ago. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't.- MrX 13:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe a chart will help:


 * That's based on the top 10 sources in a Google search. If anyone wants to propose an alternative method of objectively sampling the body of sources, that would be most welcome.- MrX 14:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In good fun, I'll respond with a chart:


 * We should be taking major news sources like BBC, Reuters and the Associated Press seriously (along with all the other news sources we've gone over, like the national papers of record of France and Germany, the Financial Times, the Chicago Tribune, NBC, CNBC). They're calling "Russian interference" an allegation, possibility, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Did a quick search for the most recent refs from the list of RSs that you claim use alleged:


 * FT is behind a paywall; but I think they still use alleged.
 * BBC uses alleged
 * Chicago Trib does not say alleged
 * AP does not say alleged
 * Reuters did not use alleged
 * NBC said: “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Putin ordered the disruption of the election.”
 * CNBC just copied an NBC article.


 * Now, these are your sources. WaPo, CNN, NYT, CBS aren’t using alleged. Objective3000 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Chicago Tribune, AP, Reuters, NBC and CNBC all regularly use the phrase "alleged." The fact that they don't use that word in every article that is somehow related to possible Russian interference doesn't mean that they don't generally use it. For example, the Chicago Tribune article you cited has no reason to use the word - it doesn't even include the phrase "Russian interference," or anything similar. It's an article that discusses Senate testimony, and most of the article is taken up by quotations from Jeff Sessions and various Senators. The article never states that Russia interfered in the elections, and the closest it comes to discussing "Russian interference" is that it discusses what it calls the "Russia inquiry."
 * I've been saying this over and over again: the absence of the word "alleged" in an individual article from a newspaper does not mean that the newspaper treats "Russian interference" as a proven fact. As in the Chicago Tribune article you linked above, there's often no reason to use the word "alleged," because there's no implication whatsoever that the newspaper is endorsing the view that Russia interfered in the election. The newspaper is merely telling us what various people said in Senate proceedings. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you guys just open up an RfC for this issue if there hasn't been one yet? I'll refrain from voting or stating my opinion on the matter to remain uninvolved, and rule on it in, let's say seven days. Work for everyone? THE DIAZ talk • contribs 14:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There has already been an RfC. Although I'm certain that in the past four month this subject has only become less alleged, anyone is welcome to start another move request. Also, since you seem to be positioning yourself as an arbitrator of this dispute, let me remind you that are involved, with an obvious point of view about the veracity and scope of the subject.- MrX 14:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call myself "involved" per se since I only wanted to word the opening sentence better for more detail in my eyes and do not remember being made aware of any disputes over the title until I found the RfC. But since there was already an RfC and apparently one before that, I agree that it's time for everyone to stop kicking this dead horse since consensus seems quite clear already. Perhaps we could put an FAQ at the top of the article regarding this issue. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 20:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How should the FAQ read?
 * Q: Can I describe Russian interference as alleged, as many major news agencies, like BBC, Reuters and Associated Press do?
 * A: No. While there's no indication that any media consensus exists for describing Russian interference as a proven fact, editors on this page have found a number of news articles that don't explicitly use the word "alleged." Despite there never being a persuasive argument to settle the matter, those editors consider this issue a dead horse.
 * How's that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How's that? That's uncivil. Objective3000 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And unnecessary., maybe disengage for a bit?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "How's that?" could be interpreted as uncivil. Thanks for the suggestion, but unless there's some good reason, I'm not inclined to "disengage." -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is still only alleged, there is nothing substantial to support stating that there was state sponsored russian interference in the election - dead horse claims are nonsense and simply an attempt to silence discussion - ow also, what is that pie graph nonsense?Govindaharihari (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * | Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein agrees that Russia interfered in election. - Darknipples (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ten or twenty washington post or similar weblinks won't change anything, won't deliver any actual evidence on Russian state involvement - Govindaharihari (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not evaluate evidence and/or make judgments. We use reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Look, I am just as sick of this argument as everybody else. I am also a believer in facts. Above User:Darouet said Right now we cite some 25 news articles in the lead (excluding US intelligence statements). I'd like to see how each of them treats the matter of fact / allegation / attribution. I decided to do that. Here were the results. Two sources were arguable: they used the word "alleged" or "allegedly" in the article, not referring to Russian interference, but to specific reported incidents or to links between Trump and the Russians. IMO those should also be scored as a "no" but your mileage may vary. Here were my results:
 * Sources that did describe the Russian involvement as "alleged":
 * NBC News (x2)
 * US News
 * Wall Street Journal
 * Politico
 * Bloomberg (once)


 * Sources that did not say "alleged" about the Russian involvement:
 * Washington Post (x3)
 * The Guardian (x3)
 * CNN (x3)
 * Reuters
 * Huffington Post
 * NPR
 * New York Times
 * Los Angeles Times
 * The Hill
 * McClatchy
 * Bloomberg (once)


 * Sources that used the word "alleged" somewhere in the article, but not about Russian interference:
 * Vox
 * The Independent

So for what it's worth, that's four media sources that said "alleged" Russian involvement, ten (or twelve) that did not, and one inconsistent. And please, not another RfC! Can't we just evaluate the arguments based on facts? --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're making a very basic logical error. The mere fact that an article that reports on some aspect of the Russia story doesn't include the word "alleged" does not, in any way, mean that the newspaper describes "Russian interference" as a proven fact.


 * For example, there are many articles out right now describing Jeff Sessions' Senate testimony. Those articles tend to be dominated by quotations from Sessions and various Senators, and there's generally no implication in those articles that "Russian interference" is a proven fact. Why would such an article contain the word "alleged"? They're merely telling us what various people said, so there's no reason to include hedging language like "alleged" or "possible."


 * Here's the central point: In order to make the point you're trying to make, you need to cite from newspaper articles, and show where they explicitly say, as a fact, that Russia intervened in the US election. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This wasn't my idea; it was Darouet's. Darouet is one of the primary arguers here for "alleged"'; here is evidence they specifically asked for; I was hoping that at least they would take it as answering a question they asked and presumably believed would be relevant. I didn't really expect anyone else to be persuaded by it, although hope springs eternal. I could go through them all, AGAIN, and cite the ones that used Russian interference as something established (which many/most did), but I've spent enough time on this (adjective deleted) argument for one day. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood what asked. Here's what they said: "I'd like to see how each of them treats the matter of fact / allegation / attribution." Searching for the word "alleged" doesn't answer that question. You have to look at how the article treats the issue: do they treat "Russian interference" as a proven fact or not?
 * "I could go through them all, AGAIN, and cite the ones that used Russian interference as something established (which many/most did)." I've never seen evidence in this talk page that most reliable sources treat Russian interference as an established fact. The preferred argument for that claim has been to count how many articles contain the exact word "alleged." That methodology is obviously incorrect. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to give an example of what I mean about the word "alleged," consider the first CNN article cited in the lede: . It's in your tally of Sources that did not say "alleged" about the Russian involvement. But if you look through the article, nowhere does it imply that Russian interference is a proven fact. Yet you're counting this CNN article as evidence that reliable sources treat Russian interference as an established fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CNN constantly refers to the interference without using any term related to alleged. You continue to claim sources use alleged that have stopped using it. Leave the dead horse alone. Your edits are again becoming disruptive. Objective3000 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Alleged" is a word you keep bring up, or seem to want us to use, so there is some logic in seeing if sources actually use it. By and large, they don't. nowhere does it imply that Russian interference is a proven fact. Yet you're counting this CNN article as evidence that reliable sources treat Russian interference as an established fact. Please don't change the subject, or put words in people's mouths. True, the sources don't call it a "proven fact"; neither do we. Nobody has said we do - or should. The references cite sources for what they say; so do we. That's doing good journalism. Or good encyclopedia writing. We have written this article exactly in accord with Wikipedia policy, citing sources for everything we say. I really have trouble understanding what it is you want us to do differently here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually think that in general, and despite the disagreements, this is the right track. From my perspective anyway I've finally come to see both sides. For instance I think MelanieN's evaluation of the sources and their use of the word "alleged" or not begins to address the question of whether they are themselves declaring that interference happened, or reporting statements from officials. MelanieN correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that if a newspaper article doesn't use the phrase "alleged interference" or something like that, you will assume that the article is not merely reporting a claim, but positively and independently supporting it. Thucydides411 I believe you are arguing that a newspaper article may make no declaration that interference occurred, while reporting the statements of others, and not using the word "alleged."
 * I don't think it's unreasonable to constrain ourselves to the first 25 articles cited in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * you seem to imply that if a newspaper article doesn't use the phrase "alleged interference" or something like that, you will assume that the article is not merely reporting a claim, but positively and independently supporting it. Sigh. That is EXACTLY what I am NOT saying. I have been saying the opposite all evening. Please stop putting words in my mouth, all of you. I did not say that any article in this series is "positively and independently supporting" the claim. They are not. And neither is Wikipedia. The references present information, together with a "who said so" attribution. Exactly as we are doing. As for what they call the subject, the references are not claiming the interference to be a "proven fact". This is not a court of law. They are using "Russian interference" as a subject that is on the table, has been on the table a long time, and is sufficiently supported that they are comfortable talking about it in those terms. Once they have established the subject - once the idea is in the public domain, so to speak - they do not feel a need to say "alleged" all the time. They say "Russian interference in the election" without spelling out who said so in every case. For example, they feel comfortable saying "the investigation into Russian interference in the election". They call it by its generally accepted name and they don't feel a need to keep flagging it with "according to" and "alleged" and "intelligence officials say". So do we. And I still don't understand what you three (I think three) want to see done differently at this article. Could we please hear your specific proposal, and stop talking in generalities? --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for clarifying your position. If you don't mind, I'm going to mull over your response and the sources we're discussing before responding further. -Darouet (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused by your position, because you seem to be saying two different things that I have difficulty reconciling with one another:
 * 1. You wrote earlier that the intelligence agencies are reliable sources for statements of fact. This would imply that the Wikipedia page should state, as a matter of established fact, that Russia interfered in US elections.
 * 2. Above, you write that you are happy with presenting information together with clear attribution. I assume that means that positions taken by US intelligence services/officials should be clearly attributed, and not stated in Wikipedia's authoritative voice. I don't know how to square that with point #1.
 * I don't necessarily agree with the statement that reliable sources are using "Russian interference" as a subject that is on the table, has been on the table a long time, and is sufficiently supported that they are comfortable talking about it in those terms. Specifically, it hasn't been shown in these talk page discussions that most reliable sources are comfortable talking about Russian interference as something that is "sufficiently supported" that it doesn't need any qualifiers or clear attribution of opinions. That's why I wrote, above, that in order to demonstrate what you're arguing, you'd have to go through the articles again and quote specific statements that the newspapers make in their own voice.
 * Using the example I gave above: you put this CNN article in the list of Sources that did not say "alleged" about the Russian involvement. But the CNN article never discusses Russian interference in a voice that suggests it is "sufficiently supported"/true/etc. The article is largely a series of quotations by Assange, Hannity and Trump (i.e., not in the voice of CNN). In other words, this CNN article can't be used as evidence that news organizations are comfortable talking about "Russian interference" without any qualifiers. That's why simply searching for the word "alleged" is not dispositive of anything. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have been arguing this for months without gaining consensus for your view. This is disruptive. Objective3000 (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing disruptive about arguing this point. You're simply trying to shut down discussion without addressing the facts of the matter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We have addressed the facts of the matter ad infinitum. The fact that you don’t know this illustrates the futility of beating a dead horse. Objective3000 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're just trying to derail the discussion again. There's an unanswered question about whether or not most reliable sources treat Russian interference as something that is an established fact. If you don't have anything to add about that question, then it's best not to post in this thread. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe that the ones here who disagree with you are merely just refusing to WP:LISTEN, perhaps you should seek administrative discourse or advice. The subject of WP:DE being raised by is not something that should be taken lightly. It is possible you have not been able to build a WP:Consensus because of a lack of WP:FAITH, but it seems unlikely. Darknipples (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm done here. I am talking to a wall. I'll try one more time and then I'm done talking to you. Above you said: 1. You wrote earlier that the intelligence agencies are reliable sources for statements of fact. This would imply that the Wikipedia page should state, as a matter of established fact, that Russia interfered in US elections. 2. Above, you write that you are happy with presenting information together with clear attribution. I assume that means that positions taken by US intelligence services/officials should be clearly attributed, and not stated in Wikipedia's authoritative voice. I don't know how to square that with point #1. In #1 you are making stuff up - attributing something to me that I have never said, finding "implications" in my words without logic or evidence. Yes, I do believe the intelligence agencies are reliable sources. It means they can be used as a source, with attribution, like any other reliable source, just as you said in #2. But you keep refuting an "implication" that I have never made - that some sources are so reliable we don't even need to attribute them. This is absolute baloney, something I have never said or implied, and I am sick and tired of pointing out I have never said it. Of course we cite attribution when we are using information from any reliable source, such as the U.S. intelligence agencies. There is no way that Wikipedia ever, at any time, decides that a source is SO reliable that we can just take it as gospel (your repeated words "established fact", "proven", etc.). You keep spouting this nonsense, pretending I want Wikipedia to state something as a matter of established fact without needing attribution, when in fact we state a fact as something ATTRIBUTED to a reliable source, just like always. In closing: you are not convincing anyone because your arguments make no sense, and I do not plan to waste any more time trying to refute them. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If I were to write something similar to what you wrote above, I'm pretty sure I'd be banned immediately.
 * By the way, #1 isn't made up. You've made statements about the reliability of US intelligence agencies several times, most recently here. If the US intelligence agencies make a statement, is that equivalent to a reliable source (such as a newspaper) making that statement, or is it equivalent to a possibly unreliable source (such as a politician) making that statement? There's a difference. Your previous statements imply the former is your view. You can't repeatedly make what looks like an argument for treating US intelligence agencies like reputable newspapers, and then take umbrage when I ask you to clarify if that's what you mean.
 * Since you've spoken your mind above in less-than-polite terms, I'll take the risk of speaking mine: the way this article is written reflects extremely poorly the English-language Wikipedia. I've been arguing for pretty reasonable changes to how the article is framed, in a way that I think would be obviously more neutral and which would be in line with how major international news outlets cover the story. Yet I and others who have made similar arguments have been met with a very strong and unreasonable blockade, along with constant threats of sanctions. It's a long, hard slog to even include a single sentence citing a journalist (Dan Goodin) who expresses a somewhat critical (and fairly main-stream) view of claims by US intelligence. When you say you're talking to a brick wall, consider how it looks from the other side. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP core policy instructs us not to validate any false equivalence between the documented mainstream belief and fringe or conspiracy theory narratives. "How it looks from the other side" is irrelevant.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the US intelligence agencies make a statement, is that equivalent to a reliable source (such as a newspaper) making that statement Yes. Exactly. Thank you, you finally get it. The intelligence community is a Reliable Source. The New York Times is a Reliable Source. Calling either of them a Reliable Source, by Wikipedia's definition, does not imply that we should treat what either one says as "undisputed fact". Reliable source information can be used here, with a citation. I have never implied anything else. And by the way, I have asked repeatedly what specific changes you want to see in the article, and have never gotten an answer. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It may not be so much about inclusion as it is about EXCLUSION. I am trying to WP:AGF about, by trying to assess their motive, but my very first edit in this article only came about due to this disagreement . I have tried to help to a certain extent, in the hopes that arbitration could be avoided, but it is in their hands, not mine or yours. Darknipples (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with your view of US intelligence agencies as reliable sources on par with reputable newspapers. Rather than us arguing back and forth here endlessly, I've asked for input on the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Mediation
suggested the possibility of formal mediation. Because some editors genuinely believe that intelligence/espionage agencies (presumably of the United States, not other countries) can be considered reliable secondary sources, we have no basis for agreement on fundamental Wikipedia policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV among others.

I think this issue can only be resolved by mediation. These objections have been raised over time by enough people that resolution is warranted. And I think that (I for one), and hopefully all of us, would be able to agree to core WP policies and resolve this dispute with supervision from an experienced and uninvolved editor. -Darouet (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, I don't even know what change you want. The RSN discussion is pointless as it has been given no such direction. If you're going to WP:FORUMSHOP, at least define the goal. Objective3000 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Mediation isn't forum shopping. It's a process by which editors try to work out their differences. I think the idea of mediation is a good one, since such a process would probably stay more on topic and be less likely to break down into personal disputes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Mediation is for content disputes. These threads have been about whether editors are bound to follow Wikipedia core pillars. Mediation is not the suitable venue. SPECIFICO  talk  17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PS SPOILER ALERT: The answer is "yes" we are. SPECIFICO  talk  17:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Just read this. WP:DROPTHESTICK. We aren't going to use the word alleged when it comes to describing Russia's involvement.Casprings (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt this obstruction will stop until we are using Breitbart and Infowars to state that Russia was never involved, and that it's all a false flag operation run by the Clinton campaign. Basically, our Putin/Russia defenders won't stop beating the dead horse with that stick until they reach their goal of making Russia come out smelling like an innocent victim. They can't do that using RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're projecting a huge amount onto the editors who are advocating "alleged," and a generally cautious treatment of the subject. The sources we've been presenting are BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung and other major, reputable news agencies. I haven't seen anyone here arguing for Breitbart or Infowars, or to make Russia "smell like an innocent victim." We've simply been arguing for a treatment of the subject which is in line with how some of the world's largest and most reputable news agencies treat it.
 * This isn't some political battle between people who read Infowars and people who read real newspapers, or between Putin's agents and honest Wikipedians, and you should stop suggesting that it is. It poisons the well and makes it impossible to reach any sort of compromise. We're good-faith editors who honestly think that the way this issue is being presented is far too strident, and does not represent how many major news sources treat the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In order to ask for mediation, we need to have 1) a clear statement of exactly what issue we are asking for mediation on, and 2) a willingness on all sides to be guided by the mediator, including a requirement they may impose to talk only to the mediator, and not to argue with or reply to each other. IMO we are very far from 1); I for one have no idea what issue we are even arguing about and I think that is true of most of us. It needs to be an actual article-related issue, preferably a single edit. Not a philosophical debate, not an abstract explanation of policy, but a neutrally stated, clear difference of opinion about content. (If we go in there saying "the question is whether those other people are going to abide by Wikipedia policies or not", as Darouet and SPECIFICO seem to pose it, I would anticipate a speedy close.) Until it is clearly and specifically spelled out what we are asking for help with, the mediators would have nothing to work with. As for 2) I am rather doubtful that the parties on this page would be willing or able to abide by such conditions. Finally, this question is already under discussion at the RS discussion board; are we going to forum-shop it all over Wikipedia? --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if we had a clear statement, and everyone could agree to be guided by the mediator (unlikely), I think there are too many editors and sources for mediation. And, I doubt it would stop the discussion anyhow. Objective3000 (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Obstruction of justice investigation
Now we know that a hidden investigation has been underway since Comey was fired. Here are some RS:


 * Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say. The Washington Post


 * Donald Trump under investigation for potential obstruction of justice. The Guardian


 * Report: Trump Under Investigation For Possible Obstruction Of Justice. NPR


 * Trump under investigation for possible obstruction of justice: Washington Post. Reuters


 * Mueller investigating Trump for obstruction of justice, Washington Post reports. CNN


 * Donald Trump Is Under Investigation for Obstruction of Justice. The Atlantic


 * For his birthday, Donald Trump learns that he’s personally under investigation. New Republic


 * Report: President Trump is now under investigation for obstruction of justice. Vox


 * Trump under investigation for obstruction of justice. The Hill

The sources are already formatted for use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would say the most important, and surprising, is this one: Trump himself acknowledging publicly that he is under investigation! after all his strenuous efforts to tell the public he has not. I have also been wondering how to evaluate the statement from Rod Rosenstein, saying that they never confirm or deny stories but suggesting that some recent stories sourced to anonymous "officials" should be treated with extreme caution.  --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whilst I think Donny is not even an RS for his own name I do think now there is enough to at least say even he says he is under investigation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting but that's still chasing the news. Wait a few days and see what remains. Wikipedia should seriously stop reacting to every Trump tweet and WaPo editorial. I'd cite WP:FART is this weren't so serious. — JFG talk 17:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What are we waiting for? The anonymous reports (news reports, not editorialsl) have been confirmed by Trump himself so we don't have to wait for confirmation. The fact that he personally is under investigation is not going to vanish from the news. As he said during the campaign -and as current sources are now recalling - having a president (he meant Hillary Clinton, of course) be under FBI investigation would cause an "unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis". I'm not saying we should put this into the article - in fact I think we shouldn't - but it shows that even he himself admits this is an enormously important thing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I realize I pretty much said the opposite in the section above - but this seems like SUCH an important story, and sufficiently confirmed, that I think we should get it into the article promptly. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump's tweets are legally binding statements of record. In this case he is just confirming what all those RS have documented, so there is no reason to wait. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with last comment by . Sagecandor (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Obstruction of justice investigation" subsection
IMO the current subsection titled "Obstruction of justice investigation" includes way too much detail. The first paragraph, about the investigation itself, is appropriately straightforward and to the point. But the remaining four paragraphs spell out the entire scenario in excruciating detail; I think that material could be trimmed by at least half for purposes of this article. All the detail is spelled out at "Dismissal of James Comey" and "Comey memos". I think some of the minutiae could be removed, leaving something like this:


 * Comey has accused Trump of suggesting, in a private conversation on February 14, that Comey drop the investigation into Mike Flynn. Comey discussed the incident with other FBI leaders and wrote a detailed contemporary memo about it.. Comey created similar memos about every phone call and meeting he had with the president.


 * Earlier, senior White House officials had reportedly asked intelligence officials to intervene to stop the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn. In March, Trump is reported to have personally discussed the FBI's Russia investigation with Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, asking if they could intervene with Comey to limit or stop it. Coats later said "I have never felt pressured to intervene in the Russia investigation in any way."


 * White House officials reportedly asked the FBI in February to issue a statement that there had been no contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence sources during the 2016 campaign. Trump himself reportedly asked both Rogers and Coats in March to speak out publicly if they had seen no evidence of collusion. Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate, though not illegal, and did not make the requested statement. The two exchanged notes about the incident, and Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this should be a separate page. If it was recently deleted (I am not sure), it should be recreated. Otherwise we should keep everything on this page, which is probably not the best solution. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the concept of a separate page was opposed at AfD: Articles for deletion/Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump. Looking more at the history here, I now see the reason there is so much detail is because all that material was moved here from the previous subsection, "White House attempts to infuence the investigation". In that case maybe we do need to keep most of the detail. In any case I think we can eliminate the paragraph about how Comey arranged for the memo to be publicized. Irrelevant to this page and this subsection. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we need a different page, something like Special investigation by Robert Mueller (with sub-page 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team), but I think we need an additional page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We very well may need such a page at some point. I personally don't think we have reached that point yet; we really know very little about what the special counsel is doing. But you could always try creating one and see if it receives the same reception as the "obstruction of justice" page did. There are probably others here who would help you with it. Before you do, I suggest you investigate how previous special counsel investigations have been handled - and if they had separate articles, how they were titled. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE, we should not delete, but move it (per WP:SPINOFF), either to a more appropriate article or its own sub-article. At present, 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team seems like the best location (I don't like that title!). Ugh...wrong article. We actually need to create one.

We need to do this for the whole #Investigation by special counsel section, not just the subsection. How does Investigations of Trump administration by U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. intelligence agencies sound? We need a sub-article and title which is sufficiently broad to include the various types of investigations and who does it. Can this suggestion be shortened?

That would leave this article with one summarizing section (no subsections) about the investigation, per WP:SPINOFF. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above: if you are thinking about creating such an article, I suggest you investigate how previous special counsel investigations have been handled - whether they had separate articles, and if so, how they were titled. (I very much doubt that such a title would sound like the one you suggested.) Once someone has decided to do it and selected an appropriate title, they could create it either as a new article or by expanding and renaming the "team" article - which would probably be preferable. My personal opinion is that this subject is not yet mature enough for an article, but anyone who thinks we need one is free to create it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's not "mature enough for an article", then it's not mature enough for deletion of any of its content. Per PRESERVE, we should continue to develop the content until it creates an undue weight situation, whereupon the normal procedure is to WP:SPINOFF that content into a sub-article. If we keep deleting, rather than preserving, we are acting in bad faith toward the hard work of editors and failing in our mission to document "the sum of all human knowledge" ( "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales ) -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The deleted article "Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump" was originally called "Donald Trump's Attempted Russian Investigation Interference" and the name was changed after the investigation became public. The objection was with the article as originally conceived.  Although the creator tried to save it by changing the title and topic, it was better to start again.  So there is nothing to prevent an article about the investigation.  TFD (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I state above, we should keep on developing the content here until a need for a sub-article becomes obvious, literally until we are forced to do it. It's already a large subject, and can get much larger. The subject, as such, is already considered much more significant than the Watergate scandal, and we have an article (probably several) about that debacle and its consequences. We can get ideas from that article when creating a sub-article here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clapper's comments are really strange: one day he says all the agencies he supervised found no evidence of collusion between Trump or his people with Russians, another day he says this situation is worse than Watergate. Does he realize how hard he makes the work of lowly wikipedians? — JFG talk 08:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all this can be confusing. We must keep in mind that part of investigators' job is to not reveal everything to a suspect. They keep their cards close. The last sentence below is very telling: "SECULOW: .... The president is not and has not been under investigation. DICKERSON: How do you know? SEKULOW: Because we've received no notice of investigation. There has been no notification from the special counsel's office that the president is under investigation. In fact, to the contrary. What we know is what James Comey said, the last thing we know is when he testified just a couple weeks back. That the President was not and is not a target of investigation. DICKERSON: Of course, there have been events since James Comey told them that. But is it your view and just to educate viewers that- that if you were under investigation, there would be an obligation for the special counsel to let you know. Couldn't you be under investigation and they're just not letting you know yet? (Emphasis added)"

Chris Wallace exposed Sekulow's obfuscation here, and he wasn't happy about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was fun to watch… Bottom line, if we stick to facts, we have leaks to the WaPo saying "Trump is on the hook bigly" on one side, and Trump's lawyer saying "I'm not aware of anything new" on the other side. This was adequately summarized at Talk:Donald Trump, with the wording The Washington Post'' later reported that within days of Comey's dismissal, the FBI started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice. Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow stated that he had not been notified of any such investigation. I suggest we use the same wording here. — JFG talk 09:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed lead section
Should the proposed lead section replace ? If not, what must be changed to make progress? — JFG talk 04:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

While the discussion above has evolved into a source battle over depicting Russian interference as fact or allegation, I'd like to submit the updated lead section as amended by myself and several editors before. This version does not call the intervention alleged, although several editors have failed to acknowledge this simple fact. Besides the "alleged" controversy, some editors have expressed concrete concerns about awkwardness of the first two lead sentences and general "poor writing style". I say the first two sentences can be improved, and the writing style was even poorer before. Now, here's my proposal, with an amended first paragraph to address the discernable concerns. Please comment in the survey and discussion below.

Survey
Please indicate your support or opposition to this version of the lead section, with a short rationale.
 * Support paragraphs 1 and 3 only - "US" should be changed to the more conventional "U.S". Important material about investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page have been omitted from the second paragraph."Provided" should be "leaked". "Cut it out" should be change to "warned". The sentence: "Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia." is not lead worthy.- MrX 11:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I switched to "U.S." per MOS:US, except in the citation of the report, which spells it "US". Investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page are mentioned twice in paragraph 4, just not named individually: Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates. The Clapper statement is the only "status report" about those collusion investigations so far, hence relevant to the lead. "Provided" vs "leaked" was to avoid saying "leaked to Wikileaks" which looks awkward; what's wrong with "provided"? "Cut it out" is a direct citation of Obama's language, which gives some personal tone to the statement; we could instead paraphrase, e.g. "warned Putin to stop", but that's a bit dull. — JFG talk 15:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the individuals being investigated should be named, but the rest of the sentence is fine.
 * "... and provided their contents to WikiLeaks." is a little vague. Perhaps we could say: "... and gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks."
 * "Cut it out" is not a quotation of what was said on the call; it's a quotation of Obama's reflections of what what said. Do you really believe that he spoke to Putin in idiomatic slang? How about this as a more faithful account: "In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop such cyberattacks or face serious consequences."? Mentioning the red phone is fairly trivial.
 * I can live with the Clapper statement if others can.- MrX 21:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅; I have incorporated all your suggestions except Kushner who is not named in the cited sources, and the word "stolen" which is redundant with "hacked"; replaced "provided" with "forwarded"; used "stop interfering" per source, to avoid repeating "cyberattacks". Hope this addresses your objections so you can move to a full Support !vote. — JFG talk 06:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know if you now approve the full text with the latest amendments. Your voice is particularly significant as you were first to revert the proposed lead changes. — JFG talk 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything except the first sentence looks acceptable to me. Articles such as this should be written from a historical perspective. The use of present tense in the first sentence is jarring and sounds like breaking news. I also strongly prefer "officially concluded" or "concluded" over "highly confident".- MrX 11:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ OK, amended again with "has concluded with high confidence" directly in the first sentence, so there's no need to repeat it in the second one. Good? — JFG talk 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works for me. Thank you.- MrX 22:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support para 1 with the following edit — with due credit to Geogene. Afaics no one else has suggested using the phrase in the Oct 2016 joint statement that is the PS cited by the RS cited in the lead sentence: "The United States Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”? The progression from "is confident that" in the 1st sentence citing the Oct 2016 statement to "expressed 'high confidence' that” in the 2nd sentence citing the Jan 2017 report uses simple phrasings, allows all sides to move on peaceably, and can be further appended in a timely manner with -results- of the next official work product. Humanengr (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support other paras as long as para 1 comports with either my suggestion above or your further mod below in Discussion. 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 23:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you agree with the latest amendment to the lead sentence saying "has concluded with high confidence", per discussion with MrX above? If we get consensus between the two of you on this part too, that would be immense progress… — JFG talk 14:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes -- and with that in the lead sentence, I'm ok with the non-qualified (and ergo more certain) "stated … that x" in the 2nd sentence and "stated that y" in 2nd para 1st sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The current lede is much better than this version - The version above removes the "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015" fact from the first paragraph. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's only because this phrase was added to the lead after the RfC was opened; we could certainly incorporate it in the proposed new lead, perhaps in a more logical spot, I'll think about it. What do you think of the rest of the text? — JFG talk 11:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added the European intercepts to the paragraph about inquiries on Trump campaign associates. Please take a look. — JFG talk 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We should use the same wording as discussed and agreed upon a few days ago: "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015". Pinging who led that discussion.- MrX 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had to edit it slightly to fit the placement in the paragraph discussing inquiries on links between Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Just now tweaked the wording to be closer to Susan's version: Starting in late 2015, European spy agencies intercepted communications between suspected Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Fine? — JFG talk 12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm fine with.- MrX 14:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support A bit long maybe, but if this is what it takes to get consensus fine.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This revised lede is clearer and more focused (e.g. "red phone") than the existing lede. Good collaborative effort. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The most significant part of this is that the FBI has an open investigation that "included looking at whether associates of Mr. Trump were in contact with Russian officials, and whether they colluded with them."(Comey) The paragraph needs to directly state that, not mention "ties" nor mention 4 individuals, which makes it appear that the investigation only includes them. I also agree with MrX's comments above.Casprings (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a concrete proposal for improvement to take your concerns into account? — JFG talk 05:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a disaster of wiki-process, to launch another RfC on this topic and then short-circuit it by continuing to change the article. The result has been that one of the two RfC options no longer exists. Given this situation, we should close this RfC. There's no point opening an RfC without waiting for it to demonstrate consensus on whatever the question. Then, we can then either revert to the pre-RfC version or we can work to improve the current article version, which is no longer what the RfC proposed.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't make heads or tails of your comment. We shouldn't open an RfC without waiting for consensus first??? Assessing consensus is precisely the goal of opening an RfC. I don't see why this one should be procedurally flawed. I also don't see your specific objection to the proposed text, which has been evolving to take into account other editors' remarks. If you have something constructive to add, I'm all ears. — JFG talk 05:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Simpler statement: It's disruptive to make changes to one of the alternatives while the RfC is ostensibly comparing its now-defunct text to a proposed alternative.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support the changes, but suggest amending the first sentence per and TFD's comments below, as follows: The United States Intelligence Community has stated it is "highly confident" that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Using the phrase "has stated" is the most truthful way of presenting this information. I would also propose adding Russia's denial at the end of the first paragraph, and expanding upon Russia's position somewhat later in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * <<"has stated" is the most truthful>> doesn't seem to relate to the issue at hand. Please rephrase your point about "has stated" and "most truthful" in terms of WP policy and RS treatments of the matter. SPECIFICO  talk  20:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the outcome of the other RfC "concluded vs accused", I believe we should stick with "concluded with high confidence" at this point. About Russia's denial, I'm not sure how to incorporate your suggestion without going into excessive detail. Perhaps simply add "Russia dismissed the allegations." with one of the relevant citations. Do you have a better suggestion? — JFG talk 20:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – I don't see any big red flags but I see some major improvements. I would add that the "intercepted communications" (fifth paragraph) were "suspicious" – because that's what the source says. Politrukki (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure "suspicious" adds much value to this particular sentence. It's not even in the current lead or full article. I think communications between Trump-related people and Russian operatives are suspicious by definition. — JFG talk 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that this must be decided in this RFC but the relevant discussion was archived before I had a change to raise this point. My opinion is that "suspicious" is somewhat important because every Russian having discussions with Americans is potentially a spy. Politrukki (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Can be debated after the RfC, if the new text is approved. — JFG talk 08:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current lead paragraph is clearly messed up, but this RFC started a long time ago and therefore omits recent developments in the news.  The current lead starts okay: "The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."  But then the lead paragraph goes into detail about that conclusion instead of providing more overview.  So, I would suggest splitting the lead paragraph at the end of the first sentence; why not run an RFC like that?  Then we could discuss what, if anything, ought to be added to the lead paragraph, and/or cut from the rest of the lead.  Two items that seem appropriate in the lead paragraph's overview might be that Russia is not believed to have interfered in vote tallying, and/or no evidence has yet emerged regarding collusion between Russia and Trump or his campaign.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead section discussion
Please place suggested amendments or longer discussions here.

The lede as of this version was much better. While a few editors have said they don't like the version I've linked, I don't think they've articulated any clear reason why, beyond disagreement with the word "alleged." The first sentence states the subject of the article:
 * Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election.

The second sentence gives a very short summary of the events that led to the scandal:
 * Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.

The third sentence paraphrases what US intelligence has claimed about Russian interference:
 * An assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".

What's the problem with this opening paragraph, beyond the word "alleged"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that "alleged" is a big deal. Other than that it's ok as far as the first three sentences go. The major problem with your version is that it then proceeds to conceal/remove a bunch of pertinent info that follows those three sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Same for JFG's version actually.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What is "concealed or removed"? 213.55.184.226 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If "alleged" is such a big deal, then why do many major news sources use it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop beating the dead horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not an answer. Do you have an actual answer? If you don't, then you should withdraw your objection to the use of the word "alleged." -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's not an answer, it's a freakin' plea for you to stop wasting everybody's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've presented several major news sources (BBC, Financial Times, Associated Press, Reuters, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde) that use "alleged" or equivalent language. If you don't have any answer to that, then you should withdraw your objection to that language. Right now, you're simply blockading without any reasonable rationale. You've cited WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT at me several times now, and it's highly relevant here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And this all has already been discussed. So... stop beating the dead horse. It's dead. It's not getting up. It's pre-glue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The objection before was that reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as a fact. That's not true, as the sources I've cited show. So now that you've been presented with evidence, has your opinion changed? If not, why not? You can't just ignore the evidence and continue citing policies. Reliable sources say "alleged." That's what the article should say, unless you have a substantive objection. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, some sources will add the word alleged for safety as per their policy, and if you look hard enough you will find them. But, the beat-of-hooves is but a memory. Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Their policy of not saying things they don't know to be true. "Some sources" includes the BBC, the Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, the largest papers in Germany and France, and NBC News. If they're not willing to say that "Russian interference" is a fact, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. We're having this discussion because reverted changes to the lede that several editors had hashed out together in one of the few productive discussions I've ever seen on this talk page. If you're going to declare this a dead horse, then you should do the honors and restore the reformulated lede yourself. One can't revert and then refuse to discuss. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can stop pinging me Thucydides411. I'm actively watching this page. You conveniently neglect to mention that several of these same news agencies do treat the Russia interference as fact.       . I'm going to join in the chorus of others asking you to let this go. This incessant REHASH has become disruptive and could result in you being topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned.- MrX 12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate to jump into this discussion, but I'm afraid the sources you just cited are reinforcing 's case: Le Monde 1 says "allegations of Russian interference" and "Russia was accused by US intelligence services or interfering in the presidential election", Le Monde 2 says "Hacking attributed to Russia" and "The report by intelligence agencies affirms that the Russian president influenced the American election campaign.", Reuters 1 says nothing (just quotes Senators about requesting sanctions over "attempts to influence" the election), Reuters 2 mentions "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election" within a list of issues addressed by Tillerson (doesn't say it's a fact or an allegation, it just names the issue), NBC 1 says "allegedly meddling in the election", NBC 2 says "alleged ties between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government", AP 1 talks about "the House probe into Russian interference" (doesn't call it a fact, just says there's a probe), AP 2 talks about "an investigation into Russian meddling" (same thing). So out of 8 sources, that's 4 explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged", 1 saying nothing of substance, 1 just naming it as an issue among other things, and 2 talking about the existence of investigations. — JFG talk 14:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I agree with 's assessment of the sources. MrX, when you say that a source treats Russian interference as a fact, you should say in what way you can tell it treats Russian interference as fact. Reading through your links, I don't see the news agencies making any assertions that Russia interfered in US elections.
 * You and the chorus of people asking me to let this go should instead be asking yourselves why you're holding onto your position in the face of mounting evidence. You guys haven't been able to quote a major newspaper saying directly that Russia interfered in US elections, and there have now been dozens of articles posted on this talk page where major newspapers explicitly call "Russian interference" an allegation. So rather than threatening to try to topic ban me (for what - doing research on what reliable sources say and then posting it here?), why don't you actually consider the evidence here, and possibly change your mind? If you don't change your mind, you at least need to express some rationale that passes a basic plausibility test. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And the dispute is not new either: here's pointing to plenty of RS explicitly calling the allegations "allegations" in January 2017. The reply from the "it's an undisputed fact, DEADHORSE" chorus? Crickets… — JFG talk 15:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

JFG, your analysis of my sources is flawed across the board. For example in Le Monde 1, the word "allégations" is from a quote from an unnamed third party, not the voice of the newspaper. "Hacking attributed to Russia" means "the hacking that Russia did", not "the hacking that Russia is alleged to have done". My reading of the body of sources makes it very clear that sources overwhelmingly treat the Russia interference as fact.- MrX 16:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * [[File:Barbershop Chorus by www.TwistedMustache.com New Jersey- New York - Georgia- Delaware -CT.jpg|thumb|Barbershop Chorus by www.TwistedMustache.com New Jersey- New York - Georgia- Delaware -CT]]Anyway, a chorus Trumps a quartet, and there is a countably infinite number of RS that say "russian interference" in the editors' voices. SPECIFICO talk  16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a basically illiterate understanding of what "attributed to" means. See:.
 * verb (used with object), attributed, attributing.
 * 1.to regard as resulting from a specified cause; consider as caused by something indicated (usually followed by to)
 * 2. to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated
 * 3. to consider as made by the one indicated, especially with strong evidence but in the absence of conclusive proof
 * 4. to regard as produced by or originating in the time, period, place, etc., indicated; credit; assign
 * Adlerschloß (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't care any longer whether Russian interference is called "alleged" in Wikipedia's voice, but I can't just remain silent when you guys keep straight denying that a very large fraction of RS articles either express no opinion on the U.S. intelligence officials' accusations against Russia or call them explicitly "allegations". (I knew I shouldn't have jumped into the source battle, but now I'm there…) Back to Le Monde, the first article quotes a Washington official using the word "allegations", that's even stronger than the journalist's neutral voice; the second article merely says that the attribution of hacks to Russia "has become the official position of the American administration". And the title word "imputé" does convey an attribution, effectively saying "somebody (US intelligence) is accusing somebody else (Russia) of something". Best translation would be "Hacking blamed on Russia". Don't take my word for it, just check the numerous examples in a French analytical dictionary. — JFG talk 16:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * JFG, examining NBC2 as per your example: Meddling is used twice, once with, once without alleged; interference/interfere is used four times (Russia’s election interference, Russian interference in the election, Putin … became personally involved in the campaign to interfere, Moscow’s interference). So by your reckoning this source is "explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged""? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the excerpts you cite, you must be talking about NBC1. So let's look at the context around the words (emphasis mine): "Sen. Ben Cardin […] called for an independent commission into election meddling", "sanctions imposed by the Obama administration against Russia for allegedly meddling in the election", "a 9/11-style commission to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election", "U.S. intelligence officials believe [that] Putin became personally involved in the campaign to interfere in the election", "Trump frequently denied the claims about Moscow's interference", so yes by my reckoning this source is not taking an affirmative position about the nature, scope or impact of the interference, it correctly attributes the claims of interference to US intelligence services, it mentions calls for investigations and it does call the meddling alleged in the journalist's voice. — JFG talk 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK good, cause even the non-RS say that Russian Interference is a fact With JFG no longer contesting the fact, next step would be to deep six (American Nixonism) the latest lede RfC.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I found 5 pages hits for the term "alleged" in a Google news search for the last hour. It seems to be a fairly common and evenhanded term used when police or others have made accusations against living people that have not been proved in a court or other tribunal.  Here's ABC an article called, "Charleston Shooting: A Closer Look at Alleged Gunman Dylann Roof".  That did not cast doubt on whether Dylann Roof was the gunman.  That's just how serious sources report things.  TFD (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strawman type C-16. That dude is an individual accused of a crime subject to pending US prosecution. Next.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the title is so difficult to understand that it needs to be explained in the lead, then maybe we should change it, to something like "Alleged Russian …"? No, wait, been there, not done that.  Replacing hacking & providing to WL with "release of emails", "leaks" - did the DNC and Podesta turn them over to WL? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, SPECIFICO, but I don't know what C16 means. I don't have a copy of the DNC talking points glossary.  FYI, people who commit crimes against the United States or its citizens are subject to prosecution in the U.S.  Osama bin Laden for example was on the FBI ten most wanted list despite having never entered the U.S. and attempts were made to by the U.S. government to apprehend him.  Closer to the topic, Julian Assange, who released the DNC and Podesta emails, is currently under criminal investigation in the U.S. for possible violation of the Espionage Act.  Guccifer, a computer hacker living in Romania, has been indicted on multiple counts in the U.S. and is facing extradition.  TFD (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean the alleged Osama! Assange takes credit for "wikileaks"  Guccifer is as real as "SPECIFICO", not a person. Next... SPECIFICO  talk  17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think it is possible to reply to my statements without going off on a tangent? Guccifer is a name for Marcel Lazăr Lehel, "an individual accused of a crime subject to pending US prosecution."  Whether or not Assange takes credit for wikileaks, he does not take credit for conspiring with the Russian government to subvert democracy in the United States.Any person regardless of nationality or current whereabouts may be prosecuted by U.S. authorities if they were involved in hacking into the DNC and Podesta emails.  So just concede you were mistaken about your strawman argument accusation and move on.  TFD (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK we'll get serious cause folks don't know you're just flirting with me. The tangent is bringing up examples of OTHERSTUFF instead of sticking to whether mainstream RS overwhelmingly accept the fact that Russia took various actions to interfere with the US elections.  So let's reboot and you can demonstrate that the mainstream view is not that Russia tried to interfere.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that they consistently qualify the claims with terms such as "alleged." And they will continue to do that until evidence is presented and experts provide their opinions.  That does not mean they question the intelligence any more than they questioned WMDs in Iraq or that accused criminals are guilty.  And that's how this article should be written according to policy.  TFD (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that the intelligence community actually claimed that Iraq had WMDs as claimed by the executive branch? Objective3000 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We're going round and round here. There were a couple of threads on this earlier (such as the hatted discussion about Iraq in this RfC). The TL;DR is that both the Bush administration and the intelligence agencies were complicit in aggressively overselling intelligence about supposed Iraqi WMD. In the years afterwards, we in the public found out that the internal, classified conclusions of the intelligence agencies were much weaker than had been publicly stated. We had been told they were certain about things that they weren't actually certain about. That's a cautionary note for everyone to take to heart. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's an opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On that note, Thyc, I urge you to step away from this fruitless pit. SPECIFICO  talk  22:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors' opinions are required when assessing the reliablity of sources. U.S. intelligence has consistently provided conveniently misleading information and therefore is not a reliable source.  Whether or not specific claims are accurate is something we determine based on what reliable sources, such as mainstream news media and academic research, say.  TFD (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, now we have your opinion, and then we have U.S. intelligence declarations published in RS. Hmmmm...which should we choose, your opinion and OR about their reliability, or the RS? Just in case you haven't noticed, there is an ongoing investigation, and as more has leaked out, we have discovered that any seeming dissembling by them was because they had to protect the investigation, and what has been revealed is that the seriousness of the interference is far more than anyone of us realized, and that the likelihood of collusion seems stronger as well. The latest revelations about Carter Page, and his denials (which draw quite the revealing picture) are very interesting. His denials are like dots scattered on the floor, with an area with no dots, and that area is a picture, exactly the one described on page 30 of the dossier. Without being accused, he "doesn't" mention it several times in several different interviews. How odd. It's as if he knows something. Stay tuned.
 * My point is that your OR seems more based on personal POV than upon the revelations coming from RS, so I suggest we just go with them, and time will tell. Otherwise, this is the talk page, and this is an interesting discussion, but we can't put yours or my speculations in the article....fortunately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your personal OR. However, having an opinion quoted in a reliable source does not make that opinion a fact, unless the reliable source says it is.  And reliable sources policy does not mention U.S. Intelligence agencies as reliable sources.  Anyway you know that, I know that you know that etc.  TFD (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You really hit on the heart of the problem. The fact that a reliable source quotes person A does not mean we should treat that person A's statement as true. Putin has been quoted by reliable sources as saying that Russia did not interfere in US elections. That doesn't make Putin's statement true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does the lead sentence cite the Oct 2016 report instead of the January 2017 report? Humanengr (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposed text cites the Nakashima article about the January 2017 report; we could cite an extra source mentioning the October 2016 report; their conclusions are essentially the same. As you recently pointed out, mentioning an exact date was superfluous in the lead sentence itself. — JFG talk 07:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not relying on "US Intelligence" - we are simply reflecting what RS say. Mainstream RS could report on a confident idiot in a cage and we would need to cite that. It has nothing to do with our opinion of the opinion, let alone our opinion as to the facts.  SPECIFICO  talk  12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is your cmt here mis-pinged, mis-placed?? Humanengr (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "their conclusions are essentially the same": Yes, contra the 1st sentence, neither report said "concluded that".
 * The Oct report said "x was confident that y". The Jan report said "x had high confidence that y" -- as noted in the 2nd sentence after the title and 1st sentence have set the tone for the entire article; too late. (Good to link 'high confidence' though few will follow that; the damage has been done.)
 * The certainty of the title and 1st sentence are reinforced elsewhere in the lead paras.
 * Any RS's that reports that the USIC "concluded that" are lying about the degree of certainty and should be disqualified as RS; their error-checking is meaningless. Humanengr (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous, but feel free to inquire at WP:RSN if you think you can get other editors to concur with that reasoning.- MrX 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, in your view, "x concluded that y" = "x was confident that y" or "x had high confidence that y"? Humanengr (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You do understand that different sources may use different words to convey the same information, right? I don't understand why anyone has difficulty understanding why journalists would interpret "The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises..." to mean "USIC concluded that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises...". See also conclusion: "A decision reached after careful thought."- MrX 13:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "use different words to convey the same information": so you think those statements are equivalent? Humanengr (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In the context used, those two statements are semantically equivalent. I thought that was obvious from my previous response.- MrX 13:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx for responding, but I don't see them as semantically equivalent. Follow-on: Do you think the DNI does? Humanengr (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have precious little time to help improve this article, and this discussion is not helping to fulfill that goal. Cheers.- MrX 14:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the DNI does not see those statements as semantically equivalent, is there any improvement you could make that is more substantive than to use their language in the lead sentence? Why propagate a misrepresentation? Humanengr (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And yes, I can understand some "journalists would interpret …". They inhabit a common culture with common biases that distort. The DNI report is clear and succinctly indicates degree of certainty., There is no excuse except our own biases not to use DNI language in the very first sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Report said "determined" which was in the article briefly but reverted by one of the POV fringe edits. It's really important everyone review the history of the article and the talk discussions, because the more we reopen rehash and relitigate settled discussions, the less participation we're going to have here and the worse the article will be served. SPECIFICO  talk  12:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Determined" is not in Jan 2017 report. Cite ?? Humanengr (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . SPECIFICO  talk  13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you post that link? That is not a report. What are you trying to say? Humanengr (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I kept "concluded" because any other word is going to be fiercely contested, and because there's an open RfC about using this exact word vs "accused". I once suggested "affirmed", which sounds more neutral and factual to me, hoping we could get consensus on that… Opinions? — JFG talk 15:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. 'Affirmed' seems both nebulous (affirmed what?) and too certain (the 'that x' part). Here’s a thought that afaics no one else has expressed: How about using the phrase in the Oct 2016 report that is in the PS cited by the RS cited in the lead sentence: "The United States Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”? As much as I don’t think it helps to continue to refer to the older report now that the newer one is available, it does allow for a short accurate summary statement. Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On the chance that Geogene agrees (see discussion above), given the time constraint, would it make sense to incorporate this into this RfC, start another or ?? Humanengr (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support this alternate wording; please add it to the survey section, similarly to MrX's amendments "Support, conditional on suggestion XYZ", so that other editors can follow the draft evolution without going through walls of text. — JFG talk 05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As the second sentence already says "high confidence", we would have to rephrase it slightly. I would suggest: What do you think? — JFG talk 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. Hopefully others will agree. Humanengr (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * OK as I understand the situation the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were highly confident the Russians had been behind the hacks. What about the rest of the US intelligence community? The FBI see to have said the Russians did do it. GRIZZLY STEPPE accuses the Russians. So the lead must reflect the fact that much of the US intelligence community has said the Russians did it.
 * "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election. Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, much of the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.[1] However an assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton..."
 * Seems to reflect the situation better.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems we are converging. My focus is almost (but not completely) on the 1st sentence. Re your proposed 1st sentence, 'alleged' works for me but not for many here as we have seen. Re your cmt at Teahouse re 'high confidence': JPG's mod (immediately above at 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)) shifts that from 2nd sentence to 1st. IMO, that accomplishes much. I can explain further and comment on the rest, but wanted to get your reaction to that. Humanengr (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're "converging" with one editor? That's not converging. That's diverging. Your proposed words are much worse than what's currently there, and your negotiations among the scant minority of editors who will even bother responding to you are fruitless.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we mostly agree on the first paragraph. The only change I'd make to your proposal would be to remove the word "However," because the statement that follows "However" doesn't really contradict the preceding sentence. This proposal is very close to what a number of editors worked out together earlier. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "A number of editors worked out" What number do you claim?  I count about 4 out of 30-40 editors who've collaborated to produce the current consensus text.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with SPECIFICO here. I still fail to see an argument against the current consensus. Objective3000 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion: Arbitrary break

 * General comment -- I'm finding this RFC to be hard to follow. I'm not even sure what we are supposed to !vote on. Generally, I'd like to convey that the use of "alleged interference" is not some nefarious way of casting doubt on the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies. Essentially, Wikipedia is reporting on a current event (investigation of said interference) and it's good journalistic practice to qualify the incident in question as "probable" / "likely" / "evidence of", etc, and not as a statement of fact. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that we are not journalists and this and the alleged RfC can be ignored. Various parts of the article actually need work right now. SPECIFICO  talk  17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Should I read "alleged RfC" as a manifestation of your sense of humour or as a personal attack? I find it really insulting that you would disparage my efforts to build consensus, especially as I've been following your own advice! — JFG talk 17:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Another scarecrow. I said to take it to a Sandbox page and work out something that has a snowbowel's chance of being accepted. I suggest you withdraw it and do that now before more time is wasted on this.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going to reply here, rather then above as this discussion is far too long and rambling.

It is clear that whilst one arm of the US intelligence services has used ore diplomatic language to make the claim much of the rest (and it seems to be the majority) have not caveated their comments and have asserted that Russia did it. Our lead must reflect that, any thing else is weasel wording.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I should have limited my response to your use of 'allege' in your lead sentence. You're ok with using that term there -- right? Humanengr (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I am OK with it, it is an allegation/Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just popping in here. Slatersteven, I assume we're discussing this sentence: "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played ...." Is that correct?
 * So the first part is without "alleged" (I totally agree), and the second part is with it. What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? I'm just throwing this out there to probe your thinking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What "first part" and "second part"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Perhaps BullRangifer mistook your "OK as I understand …" para as a proposed lead para?)
 * Re 'alleged': As others here have objected to that word, can you offer an alternative phrasing to the lead sentence that captures your intent? Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, I was referring to the first and second halves of your sentence I copied in my comment. Here it is again: (1) "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to (2) the alleged role that the Russian government played ...."
 * Did I understand you correctly, or am I way off base? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes those are the words I used, I am not sure what there is to not understand. It is an allegation, so it has been alleged. As to alternative wording. However I am wondering what we are arguing about, as it stand the opening paragraph of the lead seems to sum it up. |Maybe wee need to make it clear that not all the US intel agencies were quite so equivocal, but I do not see what about the lead paragraph is a problem.
 * "A number of US intelligence agencies officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.[1] In January 2017, whilst another U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances.[2] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015"
 * It is odd that it says that "everyone" and then goes on to say "except these people". This is the germ of the debate, the fact we do over egg the cake over the degree to which US intelligence had concluded the Russians did it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, we aren't arguing about anything. I just wanted to make sure I understood you. My questions were just as much to figure out your meaning as to learn from you. I'll repeat them here.
 * What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? Why use alleged? I thought there was a lot of certainty about the involvement of the Russian government, enough that we wouldn't need to use the word "alleged" there. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to figure this out. I've read most RS, but there are other RS and other ways of looking at this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot as not absolute. And whilst there may be "a lot of certainty" this is not 100% (even in the US intelligence community). it is not "a lot of certainty" that is needed but "beyond reasonable doubt", and that seems to me to not be the case yet.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Implementing the reformulated first paragraph
I think it's time to reinstate the reformulated first paragraph of the article. Here it is:



I'm not saying this first paragraph is perfect, but it is much stronger than the current first paragraph, and I think it has greater support from active editors on this talk page than the current lede. The advantages of this first paragraph, in my view, are:


 * 1) The first sentence states generally what the article is about.
 * 2) It gives a brief description of the major background elements of the affair (the release of emails by Wikileaks, the claims made by US intelligence).
 * 3) It uses the appropriate word, "alleged," to refer to the allegations of Russian interference. Many reliable sources use exactly this word regularly, and almost all treat "Russian interference" as an allegation.

A number of editors worked together to formulate this intro paragraph. It was then reverted by MrX (diff). In the ensuing discussion, several more editors have expressed support for the reformulated first paragraph, and I think that it has majority support here. The main bone of contention with this text has been the word "alleged," but I think the above source discussion has shown that "alleged" is completely in line with reporting from numerous reliable sources (among them the BBC, Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, NBC News, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde, although this list is by no means exhaustive).

Since the source discussion has established that "alleged" is a completely mainstream designation for Russia's alleged interference, I think this objection is now moot. I'd therefore propose to reinstate the reformulated intro paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, just no. Those who understand these things best have "concluded" that Russia interfered in the election, and numerous RS have so stated. This is a very controversial proposal. One cannot make such a decision based on the presence or absence of one word. It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed. Investigations since then have been on the basis that the allegations were correct, and discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it, and that Putin directed it.
 * What's left is to confirm the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election. So far what's been discovered tends strongly to confirm that allegation. So far we're calling that part an allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the lead section, you should both comment in the RfC. Somehow all discussions have turned into a kind of source battle on the word "alleged" but that's not what the amended text says, so I would appreciate that opinionated editors give a honest look and state their position.
 * Now,, I wish you could convince me about your statements:
 * "It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed" – what confirmation did we get besides the allegations, started by CrowdStrike and the DNC in June 2016 and repeated ad nauseam by US intelligence services and politicians since then, that Russian intelligence services were the perpetrators of DNC hacks and acted as sources to WikiLeaks, while being directed by Putin himself? On what basis, and by whom, were these inferences made? And with which evidence?
 * "Those who understand these things best" – you mean the intelligence services of a nation alleging misdeeds by intelligence services of another nation? or a political party who happened to lose an unlosable election alleging misdeeds by a rival political party who happened to win it? or established members of a political party alleging misdeeds by a newcomer into their party who happened to win the support of their voters, to their dismay? or vested interests who fear what an "unfit" president may bestow upon them?
 * "discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it" – Which discoveries have confirmed anything? I read an awful lot about this issue, and see only innuendo. If you have seen some tangible confirmations which are not mere allegations, I'd love to see them.
 * Thanks for helping me out. — JFG talk 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you take a shot at answering my questions following your statements above? Thanks, — JFG talk 11:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "No, just no" is not a very productive attitude to take. If I understand your above post, you're saying that since US intelligence agencies ("Those who understand these things best") have said Russia interfered in the US elections, we should take that as fact. That's not how Wikipedia works. We go on the basis of reliable sources, and the large majority of reliable sources are treating "Russian interference" as an allegation. I say "large majority," because I'm holding out the possibility that one or two newspapers might state unequivocally that Russia interfered. I haven't seen any such clear statements from reliable sources, and they're apparently sufficiently difficult to find that (to my knowledge) they haven't been posted in this talk page yet. We go with source like the BBC and Reuters, not with allegations made by intelligence agencies.
 * We should absolutely describe the allegations made by US intelligence agencies, and the reformulated first paragraph does that. Reliable sources have reported heavily on those allegations, so we will, of course, describe them in this article. That's very different from taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact, which is something we're not going to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411, you wrote "large majority". You must have missed my explanation of the flaws in your thinking. There are plenty of RS which don't use "alleged". Your search, which "includes" alleged just confirms your bias. Others have performed the same search "without" alleged and found plenty of RS. This just shows that the search, especially without a complete (that would be hundreds of references) analysis on a time line, really doesn't prove anything other than that we can find RS which use it and which don't use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I responded to your points here. The fact that a newspaper does not use the word "alleged" in a particular article does not mean that the newspaper does not treat "Russian interference" as an allegation. There are synonyms for "alleged," and there are plenty of ways of describing an allegation without endorsing it as true. Anyways, what I said above is that the large majority of reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, and based on our discussion of sources above, that's true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven’t seen anyone here taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact. Exaggerating what other editors have done does not convince. I’ll say it again, if you are attempting to convince other editors, you are using the wrong tact. This talk page is way too long, filled as it is, with the same repetition . Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer clearly said, in reply to my proposal, that we should take the claims of US intelligence agencies as fact. That is specifically what I was responding to. I assume you disagree strongly with BullRangifer on this - if you don't, please correct me.
 * Thank you for the note about my tact, but I'm proposing something concrete here. What do you think of the proposed wording of the first paragraph? I think the source discussion above settled the issue of whether "alleged" is a mainstream way of describing "Russian interference" (again, please correct me if you disagree), so I think we can move on to reimplementing the reformulated first paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not convince. I do not agree to the change for reasons stated over and over. This is a boring waste of time. Objective3000 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should just ask my two questions directly:
 * Do you agree with BullRangifer's statement that we should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts?
 * Do you agree that reliable sources often use "alleged" when describing "Russian interference," and that they generally treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, without endorsing it as fact?
 * I really don't know what would convince you, but I think I've shown what needs to be shown: that reliable sources generally frame "Russian interference" as an allegation. I've also said why I think the reformulated first paragraph is better than what we have now. If you don't agree, it would be more helpful if you'd say what it is you don't like about the reformulated first paragraph. "You do not convince" isn't productive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You've made your point. The community can't allow a talk page to be bludgeoned against consensus. We all need to accept reality when our views are not shared by the consensus of editors on a given issue.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say that we "should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts." I believe they are correct, just as you, as an advocate for the Russian denial that any of this ever happened and that Trump is pure as snow, think the U.S. intelligence community is wrong. (Okay, I guess Putin has a right to have someone defending his POV here, and God knows that Trump and Putin are not ignoring our proceedings or allowing this discussion to happen without actively seeking to influence the editing process. C'est la vie.)

What we should NOT do is make the intelligence community state it as an "allegation", when they have "concluded" it happened. Don't misquote them. They are certain, even if you aren't. The current lead sentence is: "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." Don't change that to "alleged". That's dishonest. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, have you read the proposals? Thucydides' text does not connect "alleged" with the intelligence agencies' statements: he says that this article discusses the alleged role of Russia in the US presidential election, and that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks", that's pretty unambiguous. Alternately, my proposed lead in the RfC totally removes "alleged" and states, in their exact words, that said agencies are "highly confident" that Russia interfered in the election. Isn't that satisfactory? — JFG talk 03:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The text I'm proposing is the one that you helped write. I don't think your comments here apply at all to the text that I proposed above. For example, the text states unambiguously that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks." I'd really appreciate if you gave it a second look. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty tired right now (jetlag), and this is a bit confusing,so maybe I'm conflating things. Somewhere on this page is a discussion to rename the article to some kind of "alleged" whatever. I think that's wrong, but I suspect that both of you support that idea, even though multiple intelligence agencies (USA and foreign), plus multiple competing cybersecurity companies, all conclude that the Russians did interfere in the election. That's factual, and there are plenty of RS which say it. That's the view which should get the most weight, and the title should reflect it.
 * I have made this comparison before, because I see what's happening here as similar to what has happened with the subject of climate change/global warming. The scientific consensus among 97% of published real climate scientists says that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, but there are multiple non-climate scientists and many amateurs who say it's not true. So in people's minds they see the 97% as ONE (as here they count the 17 US intelligence agencies as one), and the long list of people in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as a whole lot of people (because they are named and can be counted) against that ONE. They think the deniers have the weightier argument. Fortunately the Wikipedia community gave the climate scientists the weight they deserve. Unfortunately, here I see the opposite happening. The amateur deniers get to push their POV and get more weight than the real experts when it comes to naming the article. They want the title to enshrine the doubt. I see that as problematic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW neither nor I are suggesting to change the title. We do agree with  and others that the article is biased towards the "official" POV, especially the lead section, and there are two proposals being floated to make it more neutral: this section and the open RfC. — JFG talk 05:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, this is being misframed as an either/or. As noted elsewhere, the fact that the intelligence agencies have concluded something does not mean that it ceases to be an allegation in the wider sense. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and the CIA etc do not act as the sole adjudicators of fact. The comparison with climate change is a little off-beam. The agencies are not a wide range of disinterested parties relying on the objective scientific method to look at hard data, but partisan players, from a narrow and specific sector, who are in the business of making often subjective assessments about actions and motive etc. With a history not only of getting things wrong but of deliberate misinformation. There is widespread scepticism IRL, at least among those not too heavily invested in blaming Russia for everything that went wrong for Clinton and right for Trump, about their claims on this point. The page should reflect that, not privilege the IC conclusions, let alone take them as read or as the last word  N-HH   talk / edits  08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But we're not relying on them alone. The strongest evidence comes from competing cybersecurity companies whose individual interests would be best served by not agreeing. Instead CrowdStrike, Fidelis, Mandiant, SecureWorks and ThreatConnect agree that Russia was behind the hacks. They are essentially looking at the DNA left under the fingernails of those attacked. It's strong evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you had a chance to look again at the paragraph I'm suggesting above? It's the same paragraph that you were involved in formulating, and that you previously expressed support for. I think it pretty clearly states the position of US intelligence, which seems to me to be your main concern. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't, and I've lost any desire to do much more here. It's fruitless and a waste of time. Nothing I say will make any difference. There are far too many threads rehashing the same issues. It's just too complicated. I'm not removing this from my watchlist, but I feel it's hopeless here. RS have documented what experts say, but when those experts are not given the weight they deserve, there isn't much point in continuing. Just retitle the article Rebuttal of the unfair charges that Vladimir Putin would ever have any desire to destabilize western democracies, and then sign it, since that's the opinion of a number of editors here. This was obviously the doing of some 15 year old kid, just to mess with us. It's not at all notable. Nothing happened. There's nothing to see here folks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I admit that editing here is frustrating, but I think you have the completely wrong idea about what I'm proposing here. It's a fairly limited change to the article, and one that you previously wrote you thought was an improvement. But yes, it is frustrating to edit here, and the environment is far from collegial! -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This version is inferior to both the current version and the amended version proposed by JFC above. The first sentence (basically "Interference refers to interference") is just poor writing because it is redundant. See Manual_of_Style/Lead_section ("If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy."). Neutralitytalk 14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the proposed first paragraph does not way "Interference refers to interference." It says, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election." The proposed first paragraph gives a concise description of the subject of the article, and properly refers to it as an allegation. It's vastly superior to the current first paragraph, which picks one random aspect of the subject to put in the first sentence, and doesn't give any background to the subject. The background is the publication of emails from the DNC and Podesta, which US intellgience alleges were given to Wikileaks by Russia through intermediaries. Any decent first paragraph would mention that. Instead, we have a jumbled lede that includes random elements of the subject, in a random order, and which gives far too much weight to the views of the spy agencies of one particular country. A lot of editors here seem not to be able to distinguish the difference between reliable sources and US intelligence any more, which is one of the reasons the lede is such a garbled mess. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for any revision. Please do not disparage other editors. SPECIFICO  talk  01:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have high confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow and that the first sentence is unacceptable and would never fly in a formal RfC. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Evolved lead text
Since the opening of this RfC, the proposed lead has evolved following remarks by, and  in a consensus effort, thanks. Could those editors who have not yet commented in the Survey section please take a fresh look and voice their opinion? + any others I forgot or passers-by, you're all welcome. — JFG talk 12:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest, I've read through the long thread above and it's unclear to me where we stand. Regarding your proposal at the very top, and considering 's comment on the nature of intelligence organizations, I'd propose only to attribute the statement of confidence:




 * Other issues can be addressed separately from this thread in my view. -Darouet (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. The wording of the lead sentence was developed by compromise between very opposed positions of, and . Personally I would be fine with your variant "has stated it is highly confident" instead of "has concluded with high confidence" but we'd need those other editors to agree as well. Apart from this first sentence, do you think the rest of the proposed text is an improvement compared to the current lead? — JFG talk 06:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, generally I support other aspects of your revision. I had done a bunch of legwork earlier on this topic - reviewing editorial policies about how this topic is presented in the media - but just haven't had the time to come back here, with real life work (teaching, research). I apologize for that, and hope to be more involved at some point. -Darouet (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. There is no deadline, except you may want to chime in within the nominal 30 days of the RfC period. — JFG talk 15:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we would need consensus among all the editors who are active on this page or who come to this page to discuss. We can't make progress by using the consent of a few editors as if it were the consensus of the larger group here.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC puts a comprehensive text forward and specifically asks editors to suggest changes which could gain their support, as part of a consensus-building effort. You are obviously free to oppose, and other editors are free to support the outcome of this collective work towards article improvement. — JFG talk 15:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * JFG - Thucydides411 is correct that alleged is the more prominent sources and majority of all sources. Google count for '"russian interference" us elections' is 1,250,000 with alleged vs 721,000 without.  The with list firstpage is aol, cnbc, bbc, foxnews, nbc, and dni.gov; the without list firstpage is indivisibleguide, talkingpoints, resistencemanual, usnews, euractiv, and cbc.  Also, those top 8 'with' all seem factual reporting, while the 'without' snippets seem only 2 are factual reporting (resistencemanual and euractiv) and the rest opinionating (cbc opinionating there will never be a smoking gun for this).  Going several more pages in you do see some flakes in the 'with' and a few bigger names in the 'without', but it looks like 'alleged' retains a clear quality of RS and quantity lead.
 * Otherwise, I'll agree the RFC process looks a bit broken/confused by now, and largely rejecting the text as proposed -- 'prior version was better' crowd plus the 'only part A' crowd seem a majority. It might be better to tackle it para by para or individual points to avoid overwhelming size because 'alleged' goes on a bit.   Concerns I can see with the top text here is is that a couple of the cites I tried are funky, and that the narrative is rather skipping about (2017, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2017, 2016..) and not a linked or overall picture -- even parts of the same para may be a puzzle.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. The discussion about using the word "alleged" has wasted enough editor time and we will never get consensus on it one way or the other. This perennial conundrum can be solved elegantly with the proper attribution of the "Russia interfered" statement to the intelligence community, as implemented in the proposed text. We don't need to choose between "A did B" or "A allegedly did B" when we simply write "C said that A did B".
 * For the rest of the lead, I agree that it does skip back and forth in dates, because it is rather arranged by themes: US intelligence statements (Russia meddled in the US presidential election), how Russia interfered (email hacks and online propaganda), political investigations, and finally diplomatic retaliation. I'm open to re-arranging the narrative in chronological order, but I think we should first de-clutter the current lead. Do you think the proposed text in an overall improvement compared to the current version? Do you have specific suggestions for further improvement? — JFG talk 06:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Template
I just added a POV template to the top of this article until this RfC is closed. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 18:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Since when does an RfC necessitate POV tags on an article? Darknipples (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposing a section for Criticism
I am tired of the back and forth, as I'm sure most of us are. I think a helpful solution might be to include a section (in the main article) for those that have RS' that do not follow the mainstream narrative. Feel free to ignore this suggestion if you feel it is not merited, but I think it would be better to discuss why you disagree here. DN (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean on this talk page, or in the article? Geogene (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant talking about it in this section of the talk page, and creating a Criticism section in the article. Thanks for reminding me to clarify. DN (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attempt to put an end to the repetitive and insistent complaints, but I think this is not a good idea. WP tries to represent viewpoints according to the weight of RS accounts. We should not make a separate area for fringe POV's that do not warrant such weight here.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point . Thanks for your input. DN (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you make a clear statement of what you are suggesting? Or, define what you mean by “mainstream narrative”? I don’t think that’s really a meaningful term. Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there may be reliable sources that have notable content relevant to the article that disagrees with the evidence. Take Putin's stance for example. I realize there is already a section for his rebukes, and although I have not seen much else worth mentioning, that isn't to say it doesn't exist. The "mainstream narrative" is more or less from an US POV. I'm not saying it's necessarily WP:DUE, I'm just trying to find a compromise, by creating a space for RS sources that "don't agree", which would probably include mainly non-US sources. I realize I'm probably stretching, but it's all in the name of trying to create consensus, and thus a more cohesive editing environment. Thanks for the questions! DN (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Putin not secondary source article not need criticism section people read WP:NOCRIT also not for having of criticism sections to not have please. Sagecandor (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I had not read the WP:NOCRIT essay before. Thanks! DN (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You welcome for reading essay to have. Sagecandor (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Criticism should be incorporated into the appropriate sections. TFD (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean keep it as it is? DN (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that what the "mainstream narrative" is has never been determined. There are editors here who insist that the mainstream describes Russian interference as an established fact, but they haven't shown that most reliable sources treat it this way, or been able to explain why we should present the issue in a different manner than major news agencies like BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Le Monde and Süddeutsche Zeitung. I don't think this article represents the mainstream narrative, but rather the most strident possible narrative.


 * In general, however, rather than a separate "Criticism" section, we should have a proper balance and appropriately cautious treatment of the subject within each section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wll take that as a no. DN (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I prefer to have "criticism" sections, it makes it easier to find it. But I am not sure it is that big an issueSlatersteven (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't need a separate "Criticism" section; we just need to acknowledge that there are two diametrically opposed viewpoints about this whole affair, and we must represent both fairly. For example, I just added a summary of somewhat virulent denials by Russian officials, because the "Vladimir Putin" section was only putting forward the US accusations, while the Russian response was relegated to the very last section of the article. This is NPOV 101, especially in international politics, it's not a question of mainstream vs fringe. I also added Putin's recent admission that "patriotic hackers" may have done the deed. Simple, really: A said X, B said Y; dear readers, make up your own mind. — JFG talk 09:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sort of what Thucydides411 was saying, but OK, I'll take that under advisement. DN (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose criticism section as a discouraged practice. Geogene (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Put criticism as a paragraph in related sections. Agree with including the Russian denials. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am sure the proposer does not want to create section Criticism of Russian interference. Of course the "interference" was bad and it was criticized a lot. They probably want to create section Denials of Russian interference. This is not unreasonable given other notable denials. The denials are already included on the page (e.g. here), but there is no separate section. If it will be created (I am not sure) it must include denials by the Trump administration, along with denials by Putin. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Everything Trump has said about who tried to hack the US election
Everything Trump has said about who tried to hack the US election.

BullRangifer (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very valuable source, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Duty to PRESERVE properly sourced content and BUILD, not break down, the encyclopedia
A couple of my comments above seem to have been ignored, so now we are seeing large amounts of content being deleted, especially by MelanieN. That's not right. While my comments were about one section, the principle applies to all content. This is a HUGE subject, and as we learn more and document it, we will need to spin-off content into sub-articles. If we delete it, we will not know if such sub-articles are needed because we have been discarding valuable information and sources, thus creating holes in our coverage of "the sum of all human knowledge". We're writing history, and it must be complete, not sketchy.

Here's what I wrote:


 * Per WP:PRESERVE, we should not delete, but move it (per WP:SPINOFF), either to a more appropriate article or its own sub-article....


 * We need to do this for the whole #Investigation by special counsel section, not just the subsection. How does Investigations of Trump administration by U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. intelligence agencies sound? We need a sub-article and title which is sufficiently broad to include the various types of investigations and who does it. Can this suggestion be shortened?


 * That would leave this article with one summarizing section (no subsections) about the investigation, per WP:SPINOFF. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's not "mature enough for an article", then it's not mature enough for deletion of any of its content. Per PRESERVE, we should continue to develop the content until it creates an undue weight situation, whereupon the normal procedure is to WP:SPINOFF that content into a sub-article. If we keep deleting, rather than preserving, we are acting in bad faith toward the hard work of editors and failing in our mission to document "the sum of all human knowledge" ( "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales ) -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The good faith efforts of editors must not be trashed, and properly sourced content should not be deleted. We want to build content and not lose RS which have been found. Our duty is to follow normal procedure and spin-off excess material, not delete it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We are also not obliged to replicate the sum of human knowledge, rather we must distill key facts to make them intelligible and useful: Wikipedia is a good-quality human-curated filter. In this particular instance, it looks to me like the things removed by MelanieN and myself are perfectly preserved in several other articles. Duplication of content is a waste of editor time, and can be confusing to readers. See WP:SUMMARY, WP:OVERCITE and WP:Readers first.
 * Due to size and scope, I would support spinning off a new article that would be focused on the investigations while this one would remain focused on the Russian interference proper. I proposed this a few weeks back but it was rejected. proposed the same thing, and  said we should rather shorten this article than create spinoffs. Meanwhile, a few sections have been indeed shortened, and I created the spinoff Links between Trump associates and Russian officials which is stable. The day-to-day details of the investigations and media saga have been growing, though; I believe it's a good time to spin them off. But I also believe the same stories should not be repeated in Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump, Dismissal of James Comey, Comey memos, etc. We need a global view where each article focuses on one thing well and connects to the other articles appropriately. — JFG talk 04:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything stated above by . This is noteworthy. This is historic. This is encyclopedic. Whole books are already being written and ready for publication in the coming weeks about many of each of these individual topics. Sagecandor (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We need to preserve what is RELEVANT to this article, yes. But the material I deleted was material which IMO has nothing to do with the subject, which need I remind you is "Russian interference in the election". And the material I deleted was not "discarded" or "trashed" or "lost". All of it is still present in the encyclopedia in at least one other article, in most cases two or three. We don't have to "preserve" every little detail redundantly in multiple articles, especially where those details are of little or no relevance to a particular article. To make clear what I am talking about: what I deleted from this article today, as unnecessary for any valid coverage of this subject, was: 1) the names of the attorneys hired by the special counsel (reported as of a particular date in time, and outdated almost as soon as posted, unless we are going to assign someone to keep the list up to date both here and on the dedicated article about them which is linked from the section); 2) the detailed story of how Comey arranged to have his memos made public (detailed in at least three other articles, and not in any way advancing the story about the Russian interference in the election); and 3) a quote from Preet Bharara about whether there is, or maybe is, or at least we can't say for sure there is not, evidence of obstruction of justice (IMO adding nothing of value to the section about obstruction of justice). I will put them back if there is consensus, but I want to see some kind of rationale for why that specific item needs to be in our article, besides just "we need to preserve" (every detail that anyone has ever inserted into any article?) As for a proposal to "spin off", there is no need to "spin off" material which is already present in several other articles here. In effect it has been "pre-spun off". --MelanieN (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW I agree with what Mr. X said above: McCarthy's joke about Putin having Trump and Flynn on his payroll is a nothingburger and IMO could be deleted in its entirety. --MelanieN (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And I thank JFG for saying it better than I did: But I also believe the same stories should not be repeated in Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump, Dismissal of James Comey, Comey memos, etc. We need a global view where each article focuses on one thing well and connects to the other articles appropriately.. --MelanieN (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

'has'
Any objections to deleting 'has' from the lede "The United States Intelligence Community has concluded …" ? Humanengr (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why remove it? It's good grammar. If we say just "concluded", that would beg for a definite timestamp, which we can't give in the lead sentence because the IC conclusions have been published in October 2016, December 2016 and January 2017 with various levels of detail. Not even counting what the press and politicians have said about those conclusions. 04:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs)
 * Agree with, superfluous wording is redundant and not needed and also repetitive. Best to be more clear and concise. Remove it. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I like "has", per JFG. --MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * not a big deal; will let go. Humanengr (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Intelligence Chiefs say President told them to deny campaign collusion


Looks like someone is attempting to order people to push out this so-called "NO COLLUSION! NO COLLUSION !" idea ... Sagecandor (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article specifically states they did not take it as him giving them a order. Seems like nothing, at least at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is old news, and already covered at length in the article, in section "Allegations of pressure on investigators".— JFG talk 14:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is new in that it has better sourcing now than previously. Worth a modification of the existing paragraph on the subject. I'll work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Appears to reinforce that the president wants his underlings to push out the idea of no "collusion", as much as they possibly can. Sagecandor (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sagecandor, let's not speculate about who is releasing information or why. Let's just follow the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not just add the new sources?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have updated the section with the new source. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not speculating. Just suggesting reliable sources for use in the article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I realize that people are struggling to write this as accurate and objective as possible. But it is difficult because a number of politicians are making a lot of partially contradictory and "politically correct" statements, such as "yes, but...". I would try to minimize their commentary. For example, "president asked them to deny that ...". OK, that is really important. We include that. Saying more is not necessary. After all, here is the title of the source: "Trump-Russia: U.S. Intelligence Chiefs Say President Told Them to Deny Campaign Collusion". My very best wishes (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Election Hackers Altered Voter Rolls, Stole Private Data
Seems pretty important. This would directly effect the vote. http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking-election-widespread-private-data/ Casprings (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are going to want to put this in the article. Let's wait a day or two for sources to digest it; some reports are coming up with slightly different facts or a slightly different slant than others. Let's collect sources here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job finding this reliable source, thank you for updating us here with this very notable development. Sagecandor (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, that is what they did in 21 states ... My very best wishes (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not much new here: testimony and article says that hackers were scanning for vulnerabilities. This happens millions of times every day on millions of servers. Article also says that no election system was actually affected. — JFG talk 07:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "The hacking of state and local election databases in 2016 was more extensive than previously reported"
 * "In one case, investigators found there had been a manipulation of voter data in a county database"
 * "nearly 90,000 records stolen by Russian state actors"
 * "the number of actual successful intrusions, where Russian agents gained sufficient access to attempt to alter, delete or download any information, was "less than a dozen""
 * The article does not say that no election system was actually affected. A voter database is obviously part of an election system.- MrX 11:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All fine and dandy. If that's the maximum extent of what the Russians have been able to do, their strike capabilities are greatly disappointing for a world power with many highly skilled programmers and networking specialists. Real hackers routinely steal millions of credit card records from supposedly well-secured payment infrastructures… For any humour-impaired colleagues reading this, I am NOT advocating placing anything like this in the article. — JFG talk 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is something new and very serious. According to the publication, the hacking included "at least one successful attempt to alter voter information, and the theft of thousands of voter records that contain private information like partial Social Security numbers..." A malicious altering of voter information is a serious crime, and the personal information could be used to influence voters through social internet networks (as was debated in connection to these elections). However, we can not make any WP:SYN here and can only use something that RS explicitly say. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault
This is an amazing story and has muliple facts that relate to this article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banner-7a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d84ffda78674 Casprings (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, Nakashima / Entous strike again! If this report is accurate, why did Obama remain silent between August and election day? Oh, I see, the journalists explain: "Clinton held comfortable leads in major polls, and Obama expected that he would be transferring power to someone who had served in his Cabinet." We already knew Brennan pushed the whole story most aggressively, his name is not sufficiently mentioned in the article, imho. — JFG talk 15:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, on the silent part, this is more accurate to what the article says:

Anyway, yes, this most definitely needs to be incorporated into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like the Post article just rehashes what is already in the article, with nothing new to add. PackMecEng (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Jeffrey Carr and IISS
The result of this discussion was that: &mdash; Music1201  talk  22:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a consensus in support of keeping Jeffrey Carr's information in order to maintain a neutral point of view.
 * There appears to be consensus in support of Jeffrey Carr appearing to be notable per the number of mentions from reliable sources.
 * There appears to be no consensus in deciding whether information from IISS should be included or not.

Note: Please let someone with more experience, preferably an admin close this RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Should information from Jeffrey Carr that conflicts with the CrowdStrike report and US government intelligence assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC (as detailed in the Miami Herald, Harper's , and Fortune ) be included in this article's section on "Cybersecurity analysis", and should information from the International Institute for Strategic Studies corroborating on CrowdStrike's credibility problems (described to Voice of America: ) be included as well? Adlerschloß (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 *  Conditional support - I would support a shorter version of this, without direct quotes, provided that someone can find at least one or two solid additional sources. The Miami Herald and VOA are reliable, but I'm concerned about the story being promoted in Breitbart, The Daily Mail, fringe blogs, and RT. Carr seems to dismiss CrowdStrike's findings on rather flimsy reasoning, in my opinion. Regardless, his expert view should be represented once it passes WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the two additional sources presented (Harpers and Forbes), I now believe that a couple of sentences discussing Carr's criticism of CrowdStrike's findings should be included per WP:NPOV., did you really just reject a reputable source because of it's geographic proximity to Trump's other White House?- MrX 15:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional oppose It is (as I say below) not exactly accurate as to what the sources say. It needs rewording, not just shortening. There is also as issue with Undue, CrowdStrike are not the only IT security firm to claim Russian interference, so it rejects just one piece of evidence, the article is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My proposed shorter text below addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG talk 07:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose use of Voice of America material, since that is simply Trump's mouthpiece. Also Oppose use of Miami Herald as a source, as that regional newspaper is way too close to Trump's Mar-a-Lago. If there is a major reliable unbiased national newspaper that says the same thing, then I would be open to reviewing that. Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre rationale to exclude mainstream sources! Who said VOA is "Trump's mouthpiece"? If the Miami Herald is too close to Mar-a-Lago for comfort, then would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower?? Where does this end??? This argument makes no sense at all, sorry. Focus on the contents rather than the messenger. — JFG talk 15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower??" No, because New Yorkers hate Trump. That's why he goes to Mar-a-Lago every weekend. Plus the New York Times is a highly respected national and international newspaper, and is the newspaper of record for the U.S. Softlavender (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * the Miami Herald endorsed Clinton for President, brag that they don't indulge in "alternative facts" , and the VoA has numerous articles critical of the Administration: . What is your take on this? -Darouet (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support These are reliable sources and coverage in various sources establishes weight. I agree that coverage in unreliable sources does not establish weight, but that is a red herring since none have been presented.  TFD (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally Oppose The problems with the text are manyfold. First, there’s too much speculation. Carr admits he doesn’t have all the evidence known to the agencies that have reported Russian influence in the election. He criticizes one of the sources based on a belief that they were incorrect in another case, while ignoring other sources. He argues that a report does not prove a case; but that report cannot include classified info. He was not a part of any of the deliberations behind the report. He is a private consultant with no direct connection. I’m also bothered by the statement growing doubt in the computer security industry. He does not speak for the industry and provides scant evidence for such a general statement. Pronouncements like this reflect poorly on his testimony. I also am troubled by Carr’s statements that he knows what investigations the FBI did and did not perform. I’m also bothered by the attack on CrowdStrike in a different case. CrowdStrike and Carr may be competitors and Carr has made strong statements about CrowdStrike in the past. (Apparently he detests McAfee whose execs funded CrowdStrike .) As an aside, Carr’s comments in Harpers are sarcastic in nature and comments elsewhere are dismissive. It just sounds like someone on the outside upset he isn’t on the inside. I’m not casting any aspersions, it just doesn’t sound like a good source. BTW, I think he is no longer associated with Taia Global Inc. Possibly a one or two sentence mention with a better source is acceptable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My proposed shorter text below addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG talk 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Jeffrey Carr is barely notable, and this opinion column by the former TV columnist of a lesser-tier newspaper doesn't elevate JC's expertise to anything near significant enough to publish in Wikipedia. And how reliable is the source when the columnist refers to Carr as being CEO of this defunct wannabe cyberstartup that apparently raised a total of $80,000 venture capital funding before its demise?  Talk is cheap, but WP is not.  Lesser opinion columnists will smile-and-dial until they get some fodder for an op-ed, but consider the source. And the biases that (however unfortunately) select against the best expert comment appearing in the least expert publications.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - per WP:NPOV, but agree with MrX that a couple of sentences is sufficient. Other sources that quote Carr include: Associated Press, PBS Newshour, McClatchy and Arstechnica, not in depth coverage from these particular sources mentioned, but still enough to indicate that Carr's opinion was given some weight, and with the additional sources listed above I believe that a couple of sentences is warranted per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Prior to this (in 2014 and 2015), Carr's opinion has also been featured in Newsweek and CNN. Isaidnoway (talk)  16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Carr was not the only one pointing out that the incriminated hacking tools were freely available to anybody, and not exclusive to people connected to Russian intelligence services; a bunch of cybersecurity experts have cast legitimate doubt on the inferences attributing the DNC hacks to Russian sources, e.g. John McAfee and Kevin Poulsen come to mind. However I think we can do with shorter prose, and we don't need to repeat Carr's statements about CrowdStrike's reputation. Here's proposed text with other sources: — JFG talk 16:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Um, gee. This RfC is about Carr. Let's try to stay focused here. RfC should be closed, since nobody really seems to think Carr is a notable cyberexpert security guy.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose undue weight, marginal notability of Carr, and doubtful relevance of Ukrainian howitzers to DNC hacking. Geogene (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Carr has been cited by a number of newspapers, as well as the wire agency AP . In connection with another cybersecurity story, he's recently been cited by the New York Times as well, so he's clearly regarded as an expert commentator by at least several newspapers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per TFD. Anyone who doubts he's notable should check out his bio and mentions here, here (there are more) and of course the Miami Herald. He is on of the more notable and knowledgeable voices on the issue. Keep in mind however that the malware fingerprint was not the only evidence found. So Carr can cast doubt on some of Crowdstrike's findings, but the he never said that the evidence was nonexistent, only that it is less conclusive than some think. Editors who are afraid that readers might misinterpret the proposed text as saying that no evidence exists, should actually take a moment to learn something topic and summarize the existing evidence for the readers — instead of trying to keep notable minority view points out. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Here is text under discussion. It tells, among other things, that CrowdStrike itself was found by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2017 to have used data erroneously to falsely accuse Russia of being responsible for hacking a Ukrainian military artillery app. (ref). First of all, that is irrelevant to the subject of this page. Second, after reading the source, it appears that a report by CrowdStrike (on a different subject!) was disputed and needed some corrections, but was not actually wrong. This suggestion looks like a poisoning the well. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My proposed shorter text addresses your objections, nothing to do with Ukraine indeed, and no undue criticism of CrowdStrike; would you support that? — JFG talk 05:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as proposed per several editors above. Yes, per MVBW, this is just a thinly veiled attempt at a POV poisoning the well. Yes, per Geogene, the person is not really notable. On the other hand if this can be properly worded - perhaps the way that Guccisamsclub suggest with the "less conclusive" conclusion actually in the text then maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Minor include - google is showing me reports about these on VOA, PBS, Politifact, Harpers, Wired, Ars Technica, Slate, Mother Jones, Daily Mail, News Day, .... so has some mainstream presence. But the quantity of mentions is much smaller and the ones I looked at had him as a brief bit, more of a side remark about a dissenting voice in a larger article.  So I'd say shoot for a minor include is OK, but kind of optional and not to be done if there is something else giving doubts with larger prominence. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have links that cite Mr. Carr recently discussing the Russian intervention on all those publications or sites? That would be surprising. SPECIFICO  talk  20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SPECIFICO Yes, as I recall basically Google turned them up from '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking', and then I paged thru and noted the URLs of places that seemed notable, and read the google snippet and clicked thru to read detail sometimes.  (If you want a specific one then make it '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking VOA' or whatever.)  Again, those seemed mostly to give him just a brief mention -- but that he is noted by them seemed some WP:WEIGHT.   Markbassett (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support including Carr's claims given his reputation and coverage of the claim (Miami Herald, Fortune and particularly Harper's.) Wait for additional sourcing on International Institute for Strategic Studies report – VOA is borderline. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't even mentioned in our article on Carr. If this fringey opinion is mentioned at all in WP it should be there, not here. See WP:ONEWAY. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No -- excessive intricate detail; there's already too much of it in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What the article really needs is balance. While the article should be substantially shortened (it's become a coatrack for everything Russia-related in US politics), we shouldn't be excluding only material which is critical of the allegations made by US intelligence agencies. The significant criticism of US intelligence reports should be noted in the article. The article is chock-full of lengthy quotes from US intelligence, and has a separate section for nearly every single allegation that some person is connected to Russia. Until that bloat is addressed, I don't think we should be paring down the underrepresented dissenting viewpoints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support JFG's text proposal as well-sourced and one of a number of other critical commentaries that should likely appear in the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article already gives WP:UNDUE weight to fringe opinions, this would make it worse. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not really notable and gives undue weight against the bulk of the relaible sources on the matter. Stickee (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT if it's weighted appropriately with other sources. I'm not persuaded that the Miami Herald isn't sufficiently a reliable source for this information, and somewhat surprised that came up as an issue. Voice of America is definitely a WP:RS.  If we use Crowdstrike as a source to document facts in this article, their credibility is an issue.  It's really important for our readers to get a balanced presentation of facts on contentious issues. It deserves brief mention with reliable sources cited so readers can read the stuff that doesn't fit in a summary weighted with the other information. loupgarous (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly oppose I don't have strong opinions about whether or not Carr's opinion is included, but I'm opposed to attacking CrowdStrike because of an updated report to "corroborate" someone's opinion per WP:SYNTH. It's akin to attacking a source because it issued a correction on an unrelated story, which is actually a signal of fact-checking per WP:RS. FallingGravity 22:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My proposed shorter text above addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG talk 15:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * If we have one bunch of "industry outsiders" opinions I see no reason why we should not have another.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC):However your text, I think, does not reflect very well what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This RfC deals with whether to include these sources, not my exact text. We can discuss text after the RfC. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks more like speculation than information. And, I see no reason to include such from any bunch of industry outsiders. Objective3000 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Carr was not really "speculating" about anything at all but describing problems with CrowdStrike's report and how it does not amount to proof. And we already include citations from several "industry outsiders" expressing degrees of agreement with the CrowdStrike report. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Objective3000, indeed it is opinion not fact. But so is the entire story.  And weight requires us to report opinions.  TFD (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And this article is not about Crowdsrike.Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note:, you need to indicate in your OP what "information from Carr" you are talking about, who "Carr" is, what "CrowdStrike report" you are talking about, and what "information from IISS" you are talking about. Otherwise, this RfC is completely incomprehenible and invalid. Softlavender (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding additional reliable sources requested by MrX, Carr's viewpoints were also discussed in Harper's and Fortune. These discuss more than just the CrowdStrike report but would be appropriate to include in the same section (Cybersecurity analysis). Adlerschloß (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Softlavender's remarks alleging the Miami Herald to be unreliable for reasons of geography, I will point out that Mar-a-Lago is 90 miles away from Miami, and that the Miami Herald endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in the 2016 election: Adlerschloß (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter. Trump won the election and is in power, and that regional newspaper is his regional newspaper. Carr lives in Seattle. The fact that only the Miami Herald would interview him is telling, as is the fact that he is the founder of a failed cybersecurity startup, and the fact that he only posts on Medium (a blogsite) and LinkedIn. Softlavender (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, do you realize that your inferences about Jeffrey Carr and the Miami Herald sound like a conspiracy theory? — JFG talk 15:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is getting a bit bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * MMfA has mentioned the coverage. I note that no other papers have picked up the story from the Miami Herald, so we need to be sure that we be clear the story has had limited mainstream coverage, but was widely reported in right-wing sources, the Daily Mail and RT.  TFD (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's disruptive to jump from one bad edit to a month-long RfC struggling to shoehorn Carr back into the article. It's already well-established consensus on this talk page that JC is not RS this stuff. SPECIFICO  talk  16:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not using Carr as a source, we are using the Miami Herald. Note that reliability relates to facts, while the issue is whether to include his opinion, which is an issue of weight alone.  Whether or not his opinion should be mentioned is decision of reliable secondary sources, such as the Miami Herald.  TFD (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. As I stated above his opinion is insignificant as is the Miami columnist's. SPECIFICO  talk  19:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Miami Herald opinion columnist's references to Carr's bio read like out-of-date material from Carr's LinkedIn page. "International cybersecurity expert" etc. Entrepreneur etc. Grey Goose etc.  All defunct. From the best available information, JC appears to be a retiree who may be available to answer the phone for a journalist but is hardly in the loop these days.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Miami Herald article referenced is not a column, but a news article appearing in their national section. And as other references in above discussion and survey indicate, Carr's analysis on this subject is considered noteworthy by many reliable sources. Adlerschloß (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Of others have well have said thus, why not make it more general, and not have one man named as an authoritative source?Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding remarks by Myverybestwishes accusing me of bad faith edits -- it is potentially valid to argue that the erroneous CrowdStrike report on Ukraine is irrelevant to this specific article (although I disagree, as VOA in two separate articles linked these errors to CrowdStrike's narrative on election interference), but you are not accurate in flatly stating that CrowdStrike's report "wasn't wrong" in some objective sense. CrowdStrike retracted their allegations of combat losses caused by a military artillery app hack (their false reading of IISS data was the premise behind their overall narrative) while not retracting their larger claim that a hack occurred (although per their corrections it would seem they argue a hack occurred that was meaningless or had no tangible effect); but the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense argues that neither the combat losses nor the hack occurred at all, see: Adlerschloß (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do believe you misinterpreted these sources, possibly because you did not read them carefully. Here is your link, and here is "retraction" by CrowdStrike your source refers to. This "retraction" tells, According to an update ... the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations and This previously unseen variant of X-Agent represents FANCY BEAR’s expansion in mobile malware ... reveals one more component of the broad spectrum approach to cyber operations taken by Russia-based actors in the war in Ukraine.  It further tells (as relates to the subject of this page): The collection of such tactical artillery force positioning intelligence by FANCY BEAR further supports CrowdStrike’s previous assessments that FANCY BEAR is likely affiliated with the Russian military intelligence (GRU), and works closely with Russian military forces operating in Eastern Ukraine and its border regions in Russia. This is not retraction, as also clear from reading your link/source completely, instead of indiscriminately citing only the first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My Very Best Wishes mentions that the IISS criticizes CrowdStrike for another analysis supposedly unrelated to the current one and therefore we cannot mention it. But it is a reasonable assumption that if a CrowdStrike has been wrong in the past they are less likely to be right now.  Not something we can say, but a conclusion in a reliable source that we can report.  Unless one subscribes to the gambler's fallacy.  TFD (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also a tiny minority viewpoint, far out of line with coverage in the bulk of sources. I don't see how the alleged hacking in Ukraine relates to the DNC hacks, and I also don't see how CrowdStrike's choice of sources for Ukrainian battlefield casualty rates are related to its competency (or lack of it) in regards to cybersecurity. As far as I know, they aren't in the kind of business that Stratfor or Jane's Defence Weekly are in. So all of this seems like a tremendous stretch on both counts. Geogene (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't believe in mean reversion? Tell that to the hedge fund statisticians. One man's fish is another man's fallacy.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you were joking about mean reversion. Our article on that topic clearly defines it as "the assumption that a stock's price will tend to move to the average price over time". Mean reversion depends on sound inferences drawn from huge amounts of financial data. Crowdstrike's record of accuracy vs. inaccuracy is a very small data set compared to that. In evaluating the record of an intelligence analysis firm (or any other source or processor of intelligence) you have to rely on their record. I don't think that Crowdstrike's inaccuracies in one field are irrelevant to their overall reliability as a source of information, either. loupgarous (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not exactly joking, just trying to point out how preposterous was the reference to "gambler's fallacy" in a content/sourcing discussion here. SPECIFICO  talk  02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange closure
Ok. How the hell was this closed with "consensus to include". I count 10 opposes and 9 supports. Maybe I'm off by one or two, but it's pretty clear that's not consensus. Will people who have no idea what they're doing, who are NOT admins, and whose accounts are less than barely one year old PLEASE stop closing RfCs. It's sort of ridiculous. .Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * RfCs are determined not just by vote count, but also by the strength of the arguments. The arguments that Carr is not an expert, or that his view is too fringe to be mentioned are contradicted by the fact that he has been cited as an expert by several reliable sources. One of the objections to including Carr's criticism was literally that he doesn't have access to classified info - an argument that would prevent any criticism that does not come from within the US intelligence agencies from being included in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I'm calling total bunk on this closure. You have an account which was started only in March 2016. Its first edits were to "Government of Russia" and "Russian Federation". It then ran up its edit count by doing mindless automated edits (deletion relistings) to get autoconfirmed. It then starts making controversial closures for RfC on these topics (the one on Murder of Seth Rich is another one). It's not an admin. It's not an established account. The charitable interpretation is that it doesn't know what it's doing.
 * And we have had extensive discussion both in the RfC and in several other places about Carr. How anyone could get out of that that there's "consensus to include" is beyond me. I don't particularly care to rehash all the arguments - yes, obviously you think your own arguments have more merit than those of those who disagree with you. That's sort of what happens when people disagree. But don't sit there and try to tell me that this RfC was closed "on the strength of arguments". Like I said, bunk.
 * Remove the text (since there's no consensus), reopen the RfC, let an uninvolved admin close it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Strange" is a very polite way to put it. There's not a shred of consensus to include this random nonsense in an article so rich with real, well-sourced material vying for inclusion. Quick Henry, the Flit.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Overlinked lede
The lead section is a sea of blue, which makes it hard to read, compare WP:LEADLINK, and which also devalues the interesting links that a reader might actually want to follow (in contrast to terms like "Russian government" or "hacked" or "U.S. Senators"). I've removed eight links. Personally I feel we could do without a few more, though I know words can look "ordinary" but have an important special meaning, such as "high confidence" (usefully piped to "Analytic confidence"). Please see what you think. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Agree with this comment by, should remove a lot more blue links where there's too much, to make reading easier. Sagecandor (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How are we supposed to decide which ones? I think certain ones should stay. I will give it a shot. DN (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's my second attempt.   -- DN (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report
I have removed the cherry-picked quote here that implies that no evidence exists, rather than correctly representing the source's contention that evidence may exist but there are reasons why it might not have been given, and that this has also happened in the North Korea hack. Yes, I remember that we did discuss this. We did not agree to Thucydides' version. If we're going to re-negotiate, that source is now six months old and is probably WP:UNDUE at this point. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether a particular analysis of the intelligence report is DUE or UNDUE does not depend on its age. The intelligence reports themselves have the exact same age, and no new evidence has been presented so far. Ergo, neither the reports nor the contemporary viewpoints about them are obsolete. — JFG talk 03:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The quote is representative of Goodin's article, and so in no way "cherry-picked." The article itself is a summary of what various cybersecurity experts wrote about the JAR. In short, it's a very good summary of how experts viewed the JAR.


 * "We did not agree to Thucydides' version." I don't know who that "We" refers to, but a majority of editors were in favor of inclusion. "If we're going to re-negotiate, [...]" What's this talk of re-negotiation? A whole number of editors gave their opinions on whether to include the Goodin article, and the result was in favor of inclusion. There wasn't then, and isn't now a logical rationale for excluding it. We cite all sorts of sources that are more than six months old in this article - age doesn't disqualify a source.


 * I'm astonished at how much opposition there is to including a single sentence describing how experts generally viewed the JAR. It's a symptom of a wider problem here - against any sort of cautious language or doubt. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's opposition because it's undue weight. Geogene (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How is one sentence undue? It represents the most common view among cybersecurity experts on the JAR. Not including this view presents a WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep bringing up Goodin? He has no cyber security experience. Objective3000 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Because he's a journalist who's written on these issues for many years for reputable news organizations. His article summarizes what a number of cybersecurity experts have written about the JAR. Why do you keep questioning this particular journalist's credentials? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A non-notable writer who works for a website that reviews the latest video card for geeks and gamers. How many editors have challenged this cherry-picked, misrepresented, undue nonsense?  5? 7? 12?  I've lost count. Don't put it back w/o consensus -- which was clearly NOT achieved in any previous discussion.   SPECIFICO  talk  21:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTABILITY has nothing to do with whether or not we cite a specific source. The relevant policies are WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Ars Technica is a reliable source. The Goodin article reviews the mainstream view of experts about the JAR. Briefly presenting this mainstream view in a section specifically about the JAR is not only in line with WP:WEIGHT, but is actually demanded by the policy.


 * Finally, there was a discussion with many editors, in which the majority favored inclusion. Yes, there are editors who object strongly to citing the Goodin article, but there are more editors who agree with its inclusion. More importantly, there haven't been any good reasons articulated for not citing the article: WP:NOTABILITY has nothing to do with whether or not we cite a reliable source, the fact that a journalist working for a WP:RS has never been employed (as far as we know) by a US intelligence service doesn't mean we can't cite them when they cover criticism of a US intelligence report, and the accusations about misrepresenting the source are simply false - the source is represented accurately.


 * There was a majority in favor of including this source. Removing it over and over again, despite that, is simply disruptive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Majority" is not the same as WP:CONSENSUS. It is perfectly appropriate to remove it until there is a clear determination of consensus for inclusion. If you are aware of any such determination of consensus, kindly provide a link to it.- MrX 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion of this issue. Unless there's some compelling reason you can present to disregard the majority opinion, it's disruptive at this point to delete the content at issue. Otherwise, the implication is that anyone can delete anything they'd like, regardless of what most editors think, and claim that majority doesn't mean consensus. We had a discussion, and people here should respect it.

You're welcome to continue arguing against citing Goodin, if you can present some reasonable policy-based argument, but simply deleting the material, against the majority opinion, would be disruptive.

Again, I simply don't understand the vehement opposition to citing Goodin. Everyone here acknowledges that the Ars Technica article represents the mainstream view of experts on the JAR, right? And everyone here acknowledges that the JAR section should mention the mainstream view of the report, right? What's the argument about? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no, the time of publication is very much relevant, especially if something has been disproved by later publications. And it does not matter if it was an intelligence report, a scientific publication or whatever. The outdated materials can be undue. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly point us to those "later publications"? I have read this argument "it's old and irrelevant" many times, but I haven't seen actual new information published since January, either on the IC analysis or from the IT community. If there is indeed something new, let's cover it, and readers would be enlightened. — JFG talk 04:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, are you actually claiming that: Everyone here acknowledges that the Ars Technica article represents the mainstream view of experts on the JAR, right? There is no way I would agree with that and it would shock me if the majority, much less ALL, agree with this. It’s absurd on its face. Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm telling you that I don't understand the extreme opposition to citing Goodin, and I'm trying to figure out why this opposition exists. The problem is that the reasons given simply make no sense:
 * the source is too old - since when does being 6 months old disqualify a source from being used on Wikipedia, let alone this page?
 * Goodin isn't a former US intelligence employee - neither are most journalists, and Wikipedia isn't obliged to give only US gov't views
 * unspecified later publications contradict the source - I don't think such sources exist, because nobody's ever linked them here
 * So given your response, I take it you don't think the Ars Technica aritcle represents the mainstream view of experts. Goodin cites three cybersecurity experts. The Süddeutsche Zeitung article cited in our JAR section says similar things to what Goodin's article says, and cites one of the same experts as Ars Technica, in addition to two further experts. Even the Daily Beast writer, who's obviously sympathetic to the view that Russia interfered in the US election, says that the JAR failed to make the case. In other words, the Ars Technica article seems to represent a mainstream view of the JAR. What alternative sources suggest that this is a fringe view? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Try finding mainstream sources that doubt the Russian interference. Mainstream views needn't be cited to marginal sources. SPECIFICO  talk  16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ars Technica isn't a marginal source. It's a reliable source. If you think otherwise, bring the issue to WP:RSN. I don't understand how your first sentence is relevant to the discussion here regarding the Ars Technica article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop referring to what you "don't understand". It is both obvious and irrelevant. SPECIFICO  talk  02:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you leave out that Goodin gave possible reasons for that evidence being withheld. Further, the article said that the US intelligence also declined to give evidence of NK's involvement in the Sony hacks. This is part of a pattern: the US government apparently does not see giving hackers a master class in how to avoid their scrutiny as part of its mandate. And that specific quote uses "analysis" where it should say "report", which makes it appear that the government does not actually have evidence, as opposed to not publishing it in that unclassified report. Geogene (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Why did you leave out that Goodin gave possible reasons for that evidence being withheld." Because that was a minor point in the Ars Technica article, which spends most of its space arguing that the JAR does not convincingly make the case, and which is titled, "White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election." With a single sentence to spare, including a minor point in the article would be undue. In any case, this possibility is mentioned already in our section on the JAR, in the paragraph directly above.
 * "And that specific quote uses "analysis" where it should say "report". I think it's clear that Ars Technica is reporting on the published analysis. What impression readers get from the lack of evidence in the JAR is up to them. I wouldn't modify a direct quote from Ars Technica in order to give the impression that the classified report contains stronger evidence of Russian interference. We don't know if the classified report does contain stronger evidence, and Ars Technica wrote the article the way it did. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Last sentence of lede
You added this sentence at the end of the lede section: After the firing of James Comey, in addition to investigations into possible financial crimes by Trump associates, the special counsel reportedly started an investigation into whether Trump engaged in obstruction of justice.[29][30][31] I have a couple of problems with this. First, it's not an investigation, it's a preliminary inquiry. ("Investigation" and "inquiry" may seem like a distinction without a difference to most of us, but it's highly significant to the FBI). Second, the special counsel didn't start it; there wasn't even a special counsel at the time; the FBI started it. Third and most important, do either of these things - obstruction of justice and financial crimes by Trump associates - really belong in an article about Russian interference in the election, much less in the lede? Are they really part of this subject? What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this edit? I can not answer for VM and do not watch these events very closely, but (a) that was just a minor clarification of "obstruction" alredy included in the lead, and (b) here is the source used in the edit, and it tells in the title "Mueller investigating Trump for obstruction of justice, Washington Post reports". So, the edit does not strike me as something really POVish. Yes, it can be probably refined as you suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am talking about this edit. The one where VM added the sentence I quoted above. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The majority of sources seem to refer to it as an "investigation". Some also use the words "examining" or "inquiry". Yes, our sources (including congressional committees and various government agencies) routinely connect the obstruction of justice, the financial ties, and the Russia election interference. You are correct that the special counsel did not start the investigation. - MrX 22:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My main point was not "investigation", we can fix that by simple editing. And we can fix who started the inquiry. My real question is, does this sentence belong in this article at all? Are "obstruction of justice" and "financial crimes by associates" relevant tl "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"? They arose out of the same investigation, but they strike me as outside the parameters of this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that material falls within the scope of this article. It should be covered briefly here and expanded as more details emerge. At the same time, much of the material in this article is way too detailed, for example, the 'Commentary and reactions' section could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs and the rest of it spun-off into a new article.The 'James Comey testimony, June 8, 2017' could be condensed to a one sentence summary. 'Putin payroll conversation' has turned out to be nothing, so it could go entirely. When this is all over the article will no doubt look very different from how it does now. For now, I think we should trim content as we add more, but not necessarily reduce the overall scope.- MrX 02:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with, we should use what the majority of sources use, and they call it an investigation. Sagecandor (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is relevant to this article, albeit tangential. This is why I had reduced it to a shorter sentence for the lead. VM restored the earlier long version but said he's open to a different wording; we can discuss. Another option would be to spin off everything about investigation details into a new article, but this option gathered little support when it was proposed by me and others. — JFG talk 04:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference, my shortened wording was (talking about Mueller): He is reportedly considering whether to investigate Trump for potential obstruction of justice.[citing thomas17] I'm happy to discuss amendments. — JFG talk 05:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is to keep VM's sentence, or at least a sentence which includes these elements. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about trimming VM's proposal down to the essentials? He reportedly started an investigation into whether Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. We already mention the dismissal and the investigations on Trump campaign associates earlier. — JFG talk 07:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no actually that would be wrong. The assertions that such an investigation started have been watered down. I still believe my wording is the most accurate, but we could ditch the "reportedly" and "potential" because it seems well-established now that Mueller is considering an obstruction investigation (not actually started it), so here we go: He is considering whether to investigate Trump for obstruction of justice. — JFG talk 07:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not encyclopoedic. It would save a lot of time and trouble not to write an article as a news flash bulletin for web surfers. I thought this was about an earlier last sentence in the lede. This one is on topic, but shorter is better. Like "After the firing of James Comey, numerous sources reported that Special Counsel Mueller launched an investigation into whether Trump's actions constituted obstruction of justice. SPECIFICO  talk  11:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC) revised  SPECIFICO  talk  17:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think we should leave it out of the lede. It is only peripherally related to the subject of this article, which is Russian interference in the election. Obstruction of justice is briefly mentioned in the article text; it is not relevant enough for the lede IMO. If consensus is to add a sentence, which it appears to be, I will leave the wording to others. (Except that it is false to say that he started an investigation. Doubly false. He didn't start it, and it isn't an "investigation" as the FBI uses the word.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's off-topic. Removed from the lead. — JFG talk 16:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely disagree. The obstruction of justice is over the firing of Comey which was ... "over the Russia thing". It's very much related to this article. And indeed, we have a whole section on it. Gonna restore it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not understanding "doubly false." Only Mueller launches Mueller's inquiries. SPECIFICO  talk  20:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you restore your original sentence from days ago - After the firing of James Comey, in addition to investigations into possible financial crimes by Trump associates, the special counsel started an investigation into whether Trump engaged in obstruction of justice - when there has been extensive discussion here of better wording? There does appear to be consensus to add a sentence, but not this sentence. As I have pointed out several times, this sentence contains two falsehoods - there is not an investigation, there is a preliminary inquiry into whether to start an investigation - and the special counsel did not start it, they continued an inquiry which was begun by the FBI before there even was a special counsel. And nobody here has endorsed the first couple of clauses in your sentence. I am going to remove it until we have consensus here what to say, and I caution you to pay more attention to discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, partly because of your comment above "Looks like consensus is to keep VM's sentence, or at least a sentence which includes these elements.". If not this sentence, which sentence? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what the discussion above is about. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, in the meantime the sentence should be kept in as is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)