Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 17

“Russia, if you’re listening..."
Am I missing something? Why is this infamous quote by Trump not even mentioned? Nor is his tweet on the subject...I can add it myself, but I'm curious if this has already been discussed.

1. NYT JULY 27, 2016 2. WP July 27, 2016 3. Politico JULY 27, 2016 4. New Republic Jul 27, 2016 - DN (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There was this: . I believe there was other discussion of the "Russia if you're listening" speech, but a few editors claimed it was just a joke, and the discussion was shut down.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There was a small blurb in the BACKGROUND section under "Email leaks", however it was noted as "Sarcastic". This context is an issue, so I'll be making the necessary changes later this evening. DN (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * NPR has a decent clarification in regards to the sarcasm issue . Obviously Trump said it was sarcasm, not the media, so the context here should not be in the media's (or wiki's) voice. DN (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to piece this together so that it sits well in the article. Here's more... ..."Months before candidate Donald Trump asked Russia to “find” Hillary Clinton's missing private server emails — a statement the campaign later called a joke — a Russian operative told a campaign aide 'the Russians had emails of Clinton,' according to a plea agreement released Monday. In the first guilty plea of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, George Papadopoulos admitted lying to the FBI about contact with Russian agents that offered the campaign 'thousands' of damaging emails about Clinton."...DN (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like my recent edit, along with a whole lot of other material was reverted because "poorly written and entirely redundant". DN (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Darknipples, please read more carefully before continuing to bloat the article by adding redundant content. We do not need to repeat every factual claim multiple times in multiple sections of the article because drive-bys ask "why isn't this here?" Your entire discussion with SPECIFICO, above, is predicated on a false premise; this article states, and has always stated, the following:

In June 2016, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) first stated that the Russian hacker groups Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear had penetrated their campaign servers and leaked information via the Guccifer 2.0 online persona.[84][85] [86] Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chairwoman following WikiLeaks releases suggesting collusion against Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign.[87] A few days later, Trump publicly called on Russia to hack and release Hillary Clinton's deleted emails from her private server during her tenure in the State Department.[88][89] Trump's comment was condemned by the press and political figures, including some Republicans;[90] he replied that he had been speaking sarcastically.[91] Several Democratic Senators said Trump's comments appeared to violate the Logan Act,[92][93] and Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe added that Trump's call could be treasonous.
 * (Of course, one doesn't have to be a Harvard Law professor to know that treason doesn't apply to countries with which the U.S. is not at war—hence why even Americans that did business with Nazi Germany prior to 1941 were not convicted of it—or that the server Trump was joking about had long since been dismantled, but the point remains that we already give ridiculously UNDUE weight to your POV and no-one has ever proposed writing a more neutral summary.) We certainly do not need to have two paragraphs devoted to this matter in the SAME section; that's unbelievably bad writing. In any case, you should self-revert the rest of your recent edit, which reinstated this massively repetitious and UNDUE prose by an inexperienced newbie plainly unfamiliar with encylopedic writing. Honestly, just compare the long-standing version with the monstrosity you created. Which looks more like an encylopedia to you? To give just one example, does the bit about "According to Podesta, an IT employee mistakenly told his assistant that the email was 'legitimate', when in fact he meant to write 'illegitimate'" have any true encyclopedic significance, or is it mere tabloid gossip and hardly essential to understanding this article's subject?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "UNDUE" refers to the weight of RS reporting represented in article text, not to WP editors' POV if any. SPECIFICO  talk  23:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments, TheTimesAreAChanging, it is a pity you decided to revert instead of just coming here, first. I'll make some changes and see if they are more acceptable to the community here. DN (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161215133205/https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1456-intelligence-community-statement-on-review-of-foreign-influence-on-u-s-elections to https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1456-intelligence-community-statement-on-review-of-foreign-influence-on-u-s-elections

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Add to ‘Punitive Measures’ section ?
Fold in abbreviated form of this from Kaspersky Lab:

"In July 2017, the United States' General Services Administration (GSA) removed Kaspersky Lab from its list of vendors authorized to do business with the U.S. government, in the wake of an investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election, and further reports by Bloomberg and McClatchy DC alleging that Kaspersky Lab had worked on secret projects with Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB)."

Humanengr (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds relevant to me. Jasonanaggie (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Kaspersky software was banned because of its role in a NSA hacking tools leak, nothing to do with election interference. See   Thundermaker (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked at the three sources for the above paragraph and they didn't mention  Kaspersky Labs being involved in Russian interference in the 2016 elections. AFAICT, the false implication in the Wikipedia article paragraph appears to be OR and should probably be corrected. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This exemplifies everything that's wrong with this article. It's shoot first, ask questions later. Thankfully there are conscientious editors like Thundermaker and Bob K31416 to balance out those like Jasonanaggie, who appears to believe that if something sounds relevant to him then it's worth showing his support. Here's a tip for you, Jason; When somebody like Humanengr asks an honest question about whether something ought to be included in an article it behoves those who respond to do a little thinking first, perhaps even a little investigating, rather than being satisfied with something purely on the basis that it ties in nicely with ones own point of view. It's the NSA that's at fault here, not 'the commies'.  nagual  design   06:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Category
I noticed that Category:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections includes several pages like James Clapper. Yes, he is obviously related to the controversy. However, do his BLP page actually belongs to this category? Something like Christopher Steele obviously belongs. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Fancy Bear
New sources are available about the scale of the hacking operation that targeted the DNC,. The idea that anyone other than Russia hacked the DNC is no longer tenable and anything suggesting otherwise should be purged from the article as undue. Geogene (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the article shouldn't be "purged." There's been enough whitewashing in this article already. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Whitewashing" is not the same as "removing false information". Agree with Geogene.  Volunteer Marek   07:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The rational talking points that it was anyone but Russia petered out long ago. Recent evidence, as presented above, is the proverbial nail. ValarianB (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, peter it did, everywhere but on this talk page. I agree expunge, purge, flush and finish. It's all Psy-ops. Apparently the Russians thought a little-read document like the GOP Platform was significant. They certainly might take delight in seeing false narratives on WP articles (remember Murder of Seth Rich where too bad for them it got painfully obvious.) Any more of the denialist narratives can go direclty to the squirrels' nest for examination.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Poulson is outdated per this discussion, I no longer support inclusion of his viewpoint because the current, larger understanding of Russian hacking has moved forward since then. Geogene (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree but we can have that discussion. I recommend a dedicated section. There are more recent discussions re: Poulson in the archives than the one I linked. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fron the AP: "But the U.S. intelligence community provided little proof, and even media-friendly cybersecurity companies typically publish only summaries of their data.
 * That makes the Secureworks’ database a key piece of public evidence."
 * There is public evidence!!! We should have a prominent section about that. Keith McClary (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the suspended "Geogene" account could provide a purge hit-list. We editors can decide what is false information. Keith McClary (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No mention of the 'pee tape'?
The 'Pee Tape' seems to have no mention anywhere on Wikipedia, including in this article. The term 'pee tape' does not redirect anywhere despite the amount of discussion around it, linking directly to the Trump-Russian controversy. This article discusses it. Considering the significant amount of attention this alleged tape has received and Congress' investigation into this piece of supposed Russian Kompromat, it only seems sensible that Wikipedia should at least mention the discussion around it while maintaining that the tape's existence has never been verified. Things don't not exist in the real world if Wikipedia doesn't mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Eddy (talk • contribs) 11:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's "piss tape", I thought. And Donald Trump–Russia dossier would be the place to discuss it; it's too obviously silly to discuss here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Smoking gun?
This New York Times article reports that a Trump transition advisor wrote in an email that Russia threw the U.S.A. election to Trump. This belongs in the article, but I'm not sure of the best place to put it. It's related to Flynn, so some mention of his plea deal should be included as well. Other sources. .- MrX 12:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a super cherry picked quote. I cannot find the full quote anywhere, the closest I could get was "If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown USA election to him,". It even cuts at a comma in the quote so who knows where its going. With the White House saying the context was "that Democrats were painting Russia's role in the election that way". Not sure what to make of it, should probably wait a few days and see what was meant. PackMecEng (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * NO.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A fuller quote from K.T. McFarland continues: "'Russia is key that unlocks door,' McFarland wrote, according to the emails obtained by the Times. She said that the sanctions were an effort to 'lure Trump in trap of saying something' in Russia's defense, and were aimed at 'discrediting Trump's victory by saying it was due to Russian interference.'" In addition, "A White House lawyer told the Times that she was mocking Democrats' accusation—bolstered at that point by a CIA assessment—that Russia had interfered in the election to help Trump win."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No rush. If there ever really is an undisputed "smoking gun" I think we'll know it when we see it, and regular order will be restored to WP. SPECIFICO  talk  23:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There may be a smoking gun email out there somewhere, but this isn't it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Flynn plea deal

 * Recently added:
 * "On December 1, 2017, it was reported that Flynn had accepted a deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller to plead guilty to a single count, that of 'willfully and knowingly' making 'false, fictitious and fraudulent statements' to the FBI, a felony.[281]"
 * The supporting CNN source says:
 * "... details revealed Friday provide the clearest picture yet of coordination between Flynn and other Trump advisers in their contact with Russian officials to influence international policy."
 * This has nothing to do with alleged Russian interference in US elections - it is about American interference in Russia. Can we please keep in scope?
 * Keith McClary (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of your quotes say it is about American interference in Russia, only that is was about American contact with Russia relating to international matters. But (yes) at this time it does not seem to be linked to the interference in the US election.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The plea deal is obviously relevant because it directly relates to Flynn's cooperation in the investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia. Also, see the section below.- MrX 12:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sould clearly be included and is impostment. First, WP’s link it. Second, trump asked him to make contact when transitions officials knew Russia’s involvement.Casprings (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The two issues we know of, about which Flynn contacted Russian officials, occurred after the election, during the transition period. Thus they had nothing to do with Russian interference in the election, which was already over. These contacts were basically about trying to contradict or undercut the Obama administration's foreign policy while Trump was still a private citizen. That may be an issue for other articles, but not this one. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The face that you had the candidate that was helped by Russia, reaching out to back contact over sanctions that resulted from Russian actions is relavent, per common sense. However, more importantly, it’s relavent per WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) Actually, looking at the sentence in the article, I think it is OK, because it doesn't claim that the guilty plea has anything to do with Russian interference or collusion - which is good, because it doesn't. Our sentence does say that Flynn is now cooperating with the Mueller investigation, and that (and anything else that advances the Mueller investigation) will almost certainly include matters related to this article. In other words, what MrX said. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That sentence looks like OR because its connection with the election is not supported by the CNN source. Note that Flynn's deal with Mueller may just as well be for giving testimony against Trump's transition team, and possibly Trump himself, for interaction with the Russian government after the election but before Trump took office. In any case, we can't put something in the article based on our speculations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that item 2 in US v. Flynn connects the information in the sentence to the 2016 US elections. So I now think the sentence is OK to include in the article.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Add to Background
Here’s a start for a subsection on Impact on Russia–United States relations:

"In January 2017, Victoria Zhuravleva, a Wilson Center expert on U.S.-Russia relations who writes analytical papers for the government, said that the mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to. “The aim [of the hacking allegations] is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.”"

Humanengr (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you would like us to add someone's 11-month-old opinion that “The aim [of the hacking allegations] is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.”? Sorry, no, that would violate WP:FRINGE in a very obvious way.- MrX 15:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, we have moved far from it's origins and it is hard to see how this adds anything to out understanding of the background.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The '11-month-old' excuse is a weak basis for omission from a encyclopedic account. This statement has not been superseded. Humanengr (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Checking the Reuters article for the quote, it looks like the quote is from a Russian politician Alexei Pushkov, not Zhuravleva. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably right — formatting made that unclear in the original; waiting on response from Reuters. Assuming as you say, drop the quote. Thoughts on 1st sentence? Humanengr (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Her point is that the interference has an adverse effect on any tendency the US would have for better relations with Russia, which isn't really saying anything new. Also, she's uncertain about whether Trump wants better relations with Russia when she says, "even if he wanted to". I don't think this adds any substance to the information in our article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

heads up(?)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html Humanengr (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"CNN has also learned that Strzok was the FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with the matter. As the No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok was considered to be one of the bureau's top experts on Russia."

Humanengr (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As has repeatedly noted, WaPo reported Clapper's Senate testimony, May 8, 2017, opening statement: "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI …The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.”"

Humanengr (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Heads up what? This is trivia compared with the daily revelations of criminal activity by members of the Trump campaign, and reports of possible obstruction of justice by Trump himself.- MrX 12:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we stick to proposing and discussing article improvements here please? This isn't a forum. If you're suggesting an edit, suggest it. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Humanengr, Thanks for the information. So far the criticism here of your messages doesn't seem very reasonable, for example comparing the information you gave related to Russian meddling in the election to information about prosecutions for other things.
 * However, so far there doesn't seem to be enough for inclusion in the article. Basically it's about a high ranking FBI official with apparent gross political bias, who signed the document officially beginning the investigation into Russian meddling. The implication is that the investigation is politically biased, which I think would need more support before it is included in the article. After all, the FBI official was fired. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to keep the discussion here here fact-based: Please see the article Peter Strzok. "Apparent gross political bias" is an exaggeration; he did send some text messages critical of Trump, particularly of Trump's criticism of the FBI, but his colleagues say that he had "not previously shown any overt political bias". And he was not fired; he was removed from the Mueller team and demoted. As for inclusion in this article, he was the one who signed off to start the investigation into Russian interference, and he headed it, so it could be possible to mention his name here somewhere. Probably not necessary; he is mentioned at 2017 Special Counsel investigation, where members of Mueller's team are listed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If this article is about an investigation, shouldn't there be a section on the investigators? Humanengr (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any other investigation articles that have such a section? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is about the interference. Not the investigation. SPECIFICO  talk  15:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See the last sentence of MelanieN's message above and note that the article she refers to is also the main article referred to at the top of the section Investigation_by_special_counsel. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @, Right – it’s hard to find cases where investigators are being investigated. I note that Foxnews reported:


 * "Strzok is being reviewed by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General for the role he played in the Clinton email investigation. A source close to the matter told Fox News that the probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by 'very early next year.'"
 * How about a section/box/list for related investigations? As noted, others are mentioned on this page. Might be helpful to collect. Humanengr (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:COATRACK SPECIFICO  talk  18:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As our interactions make you uneasy, I will, out of consideration, not respond. Humanengr (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there's such a place for that already at the bottom of the article page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean the 'See also', that's a grab bag. My suggestion is for something more focused, coherent, and informative. Humanengr (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Look way at the bottom, after External links. In the first box there is "Related" where there are links to articles: Cyberwarfare by Russia, Russian espionage in the United States, The Plot to Hack America, Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?. This may be the place to add other related articles or a new category can be added in that box. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than "focused, coherent, and informative", your suggestion is more along the lines of tangential and fringe. The notion that the Mueller investigation is secretly anti-Trump is a popular conspiracy theory in some circles, but not something that approaches a significant point of view. ValarianB (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I take it Senator Grassley is 'fringe'? "The communications between members of the Clinton email investigation team raise questions about the integrity of that investigation, and about the objectivity of Mr. Strzok’s work for the special counsel …" Humanengr (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like my last message is closer to what you want than the other editor's, but you responded to the other editor instead. Be careful that you don't get caught up in the conflict culture of Wikipedia and diverted from the productive editing culture. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I responded (in effect) to your msg with the new section below. I responded to ValarianB's description of my suggestion as "fringe" with a pointer to Grassley's on-point statement in a Bloomberg article. At your suggestion, though, I will ignore such remarks, though they do seem representative of the controlling positions here. Humanengr (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you need to do the opposite. Around here the "controlling positions" are what's called "consensus." You need to go with the consensus now and move on to other things.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying about how you responded. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Grassley is expressing a fringe opinion. ValarianB (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Source? Humanengr (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Grassley's FBI bit is fringe. Belongs in fringeopedia.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV in templates at bottom
Having as the largest template ‘Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections’ indicates gross bias when the encompassing issue is Foreign electoral intervention, which as indicated there, is subsumed under Regime change. Comments? Humanengr (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see replacing the heading ‘Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections’ with 'Foreign electoral intervention', if that's what your suggesting. I don't think it would be a better characterization of the article links there. We might consider adding that article Foreign electoral intervention somewhere down there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not replacing the heading; subsuming. Russian interference is a subtype of 'Foreign electoral intervention' which is a subtype of 'Regime change'. The first should be subsumed under the second which is in turn under the third. This would add two layers to the hierarchy. Humanengr (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That organization would be:
 * I. 'Regime change'
 * A. 'Foreign electoral intervention'
 * 1. ‘Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections’
 * It looks like that would be creating headings for sections that contain only one element, which I don't think is useful. And if other elements were added,  they might be too much of a departure from the topic of the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excluding mention of U.S. interference is prima facie evidence of NPOV violation. As a simplified implementation, 'Foreign electoral intervention' could include 'U.S. interference in elections', 'Russian interference in elections'. Other prime actors and an 'other' category could be added, but for now we can leave it at the two most salient. To ignore one while pretending the other is the sole such actor is a gross disservice to our readership. Humanengr (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, and the changes you're suggesting don't seem better for the article, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous messages. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, the U.S. has not interfered in other elections? Humanengr (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So far it looks like your suggested changes wouldn't work, although I think I've been open to considering them. Did you have any others? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "It looks like that would be creating headings for sections that contain only one element, which I don't think is useful. And if other elements were added, they might be too much of a departure from the topic of the article." I responded with a suggestion for a one additional level consisting of two elements balanced to provide context. If I understand your position correctly, you think it appropriate to exclude mention of or links to U.S. interference in other elections or regime change from this article while creating the impression that Russia interferes and only Russia interferes. Is that correct? Humanengr (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Humanengr, Sorry, I missed that organization point of yours. It appears what you are suggesting (with an addition C from me) is the following structure.
 * I. 'Foreign electoral intervention'
 * A. 'Russian interference in elections'
 * B. 'U.S. interference in elections'
 * C. D. ... (other countries' interference)
 * I think adding 'Foreign electoral intervention' as a category to the four categories that are already there, is worth considering. Is that along the lines of what you're suggesting? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for re-reading. Yes, that was my intent. Shall we continue here or split out to focus?Humanengr (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's up to you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is not about supposed US interference in elections. Stick to the actual topic, if possible. ValarianB (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ValarianB, That line of reasoning could also exclude the bottom sections:
 * 'Hacking in the 2010s'
 * '(2012 ←)   United States presidential election, 2016    (→ 2020)'
 * 'Other third-party and independent candidates'.
 * It seems like 'Foreign electoral intervention' would fit in as another category. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Categories are not subordinate to an article topic. Articles are placed in categories. Humanengr (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be trying to change the subject and the scope of the article. The push back that you're seeing from almost everyone is that that's not likely going to happen, no matter how many unique ways you propose to do it. This is starting to get into WP:IDHT territory.- MrX 21:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree Huma is kind of "in a slump" as the Americans say, he's gone Oh-for-2017. I don't see any of his view gaining consensus here.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How am I "trying to change the subject and scope of the article"? My suggestion regards the category into which the article fits. Please explain. Humanengr (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "the encompassing issue is Foreign electoral intervention; "So, the U.S. has not interfered in other elections?"; and “The aim [of the hacking allegations] is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.” are all examples of you trying to change the subject or scope of the article. The fact that you had to ask is exactly what I mean by WP:IDHT.- MrX 22:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By ‘encompassing issue’, I am addressing ‘Russian interference’ as a subtype of something else. That was not a suggestion to change the subject (i.e., the thing being discussed) or scope (the breadth of the discussion). It refers to recognizing a category into which the article fits. Is that not clear? Humanengr (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You must know that I'm talking about the subject and scope of the article, not the subject and scope of this discussion. It seems like you just wanted to bury 'Russian interference' under other stuff ("Having as the largest template ‘Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections’ indicates gross bias..." and "The first should be subsumed under the second which is in turn under the third. This would add two layers to the hierarchy."). You didn't explain how this would help readers understand the subject of this article better, so I conclude (based on all of your comments on this talk page), that you are trying to change the article in ways that are contrary to the mainstream view that Russia interfered with 2016 U.S. elections.- MrX 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what he's suggesting now. At the bottom of the article are four sections of links:
 * 'Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections'
 * 'Hacking in the 2010s'
 * '(2012 ←) United States presidential election, 2016 (→ 2020)'
 * 'Other third-party and independent candidates'.


 * I think what Humanengr is suggesting is adding a section 'Foreign electoral intervention' to the above four. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And that will accomplish...What? SPECIFICO  talk  01:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The same thing the other sections down there accomplish. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MrX, Could you comment on the above remarks since your last message? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Those "sections of links" are called navigation templates (not "categories" either). I'm not aware that most sources describe the election interference as "Foreign electoral intervention", or how such a template would comply with the guidelines with respect to this article. I'm curious what other articles would go into such a template.- MrX 21:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "I'm curious what other articles would go into such a template." — I think we'd need to call on Humanengr for information on that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@, re: "… describe the election interference as …", are you saying that "Election interference" or "Foreign election interference" is better than "Foreign electoral interference"? thx Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh... no, but what does that have to do with anything anyway? No one mentioned "Foreign electoral interference".- MrX 20:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, miswrote. That should have been as you wrote: "Foreign electoral intervention". Humanengr (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is [your words] "election interference" by Russia the only example of "election interference"? Humanengr (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In case someone needs a refresher, (from WP:NPOVTITLE)..."Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." - DN (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV .ne. WP:NPOVTITLE. Humanengr (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include Dan Goodin's criticism of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should the article include Dan Goodin's criticism of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?- MrX 18:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Yes - As discussed several times already. As a security expert writing for a RS there is no reason not to include him. There are no new developments with the report cited for not listing it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pack, Goodin is not a "security expert" - He's a journalist and not even a WP:notable journalist. The material is also misrepresented, UNDUE, out of date, cherry-picked, subjective, and only marginally related to the topic of this article, to wit Russian Interference, not Unclassified Reports About Russian Interference.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He is a journalist that specializes in security, specifically "malware, computer espionage, botnets, and hardware hacking". Which makes his writing applicable to the section. There is no misrepresentation of the material he reported on, well covered RS on the subject so due, written in the same time frame as every other source in the section with no new information making his report any less applicable, cherry-picked goes with the undue part, subjective only based on his experience which is all any of the sources has, and not marginal to that section of the article. This is a little silly at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I disagree for the reasons already stated, which you did not really refute. The author bio is from his own publication, so it hardly establishes his credentials or expertise by any objective standard. Simple commercial promotion. Note that he fails WP Notability.  At any rate, if the opinion expressed in that column is widely held and significant, it should be possible to find an unimpeachable notable expert who has been cited by a secondary source.  I think that's the simple solution. Otherwise, no go IMO.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Searching his name brings up several secondary sources covering his reporting in general. Yes I used his bio as a reference on his background, which as far as I can tell is not disputed information or incorrect, feel free to show me that it is wrong. Also writers for RS do not need to meet the WP:Notability guidelines, that is required for them to have their own articles not be used as sources. Most writers for RS do not meet that bar, such as Chris Strohm from Bloomberg and Jannis Brühl and Hakan Tanriverdi from Suddeutsche Zeitung which we cite in that same section. As far as you have show, there is no reason not to include. He is routinely used as a source for several other publications in this field, it's written in a strong RS, and in the same time frame as all the other sources in that section with no new revelations that make his report any less applicable. Looks like a easy choice here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be a reporter of fact or a reporter of others' opinions, one need only be a professional journalist at a reputable and rigorously edited publication. Goodin's factual reporting might indeed by cited. But Goodin does not have the credentials to suggest that his personal opinion or analysis is noteworthy. RS for fact, yes often. His opinion, no. Anyway it's dated etc. What about the easy solution of finding an acknowledged expert who says the same thing. That would be easier to consider -- if such a thing can be found.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not an opinion article we are looking to cite, so that does not apply. Also how is it any more dated than anything else in that section? I have yet to see anything recent that changed with the December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report, what information are you referring to that changes it? Finally the easiest way would be to use policy and include valid and notable articles from RS especially since no policy based reasons to exclude it are provided. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with those points. And as far as cherry picking/misrepresentation goes, here's a quote from a Dan Goodin piece published online yesterday: Fancy Bear is one of two Russian-sponsored hacking outfits researchers say breached Democratic National Committee networks ahead of last year's presidential election.  Nobody is trying to push that into the article, so this proposed addition just looks like quote shopping to me. Geogene (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The alleged connection between Fancy Bear and the DNC email releases is already discussed in this Wiki article. You're welcome to add Goodin's most recent article on the subject as an additional source. The fact that not every article written by Goodin is cited here isn't an argument for not citing Goodin once. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes because the citation in question directly pertains to the report, provides important context and insight, is from a reliable source, and echoes a common opinion by mainstream, non-conspiratorial, level headed thinkers regarding the evidence presented in that report, namely, that it was a disappointment and did not live up to the widespread hype surrounding the issue. The reasoning by other editors supporting the removal of this information because its "not fair" or that it "implies" there is no evidence elsewhere, that other revelations have somehow "mooted" the pertinence of this information, that it somehow "misleads" (how insulting to our readers intelligence that is) or should be removed because there's other evidence elsewhere is utterly unconvincing and offensive to my sensibilities. Taken in sum and as a whole I cannot help but perceive the suppression of this material not as a noble adherence to the principles of NPOV but rather as an attempt to remove historical commentary contrary to a preferred narrative for ideological reasons; reasons not in the best interests of the encyclopedia and damaging to the reputation of the encyclopedia.  Marteau (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Marteau, you do not address the key objections cited by the "oppose" editors below. And then you launch more ad hominem attacks. Not helpful. SPECIFICO  talk  13:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes – Not only Goodin, but many other commenters lamented the lack of evidence and the vagueness of allegations in the January report, despite it having been promoted as a damning corroboration of previous reports from December and October 2016. To editors dismissing this as "old news", I have not seen more recent assessments of that report that would contradict Goodin's view. Most security experts who commented share a similar opinion, expressed with more or less nuance. — JFG talk 12:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't get to go around collecting non-notable dissenting opinions until you have more text in the article devoted to criticism of the report than you have about the report itself. That's not how neutrality works. Geogene (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * No - This content has always been WP:UNDUE. On top of that, it's now so outdated, relative to the overall investigation, that it's fairly misleading.- MrX 22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Goodin's commentary was very typical of commentary at the time on the Joint Analysis Report. We could equally have cited a number of other sources that gave very similar views - that the JAR did not provide compelling evidence to link Russia to the email releases. The JAR is a central part of this story, being one of only a few US intelligence reports on the subject. I don't see how the mainstream view of one of the only reports issued by US intelligence about alleged Russian hacking could be considered WP:UNDUE.
 * I also don't see how this material could be regarded as outdated. What makes it outdated? It's an 11-month-old source discussing an 11-month-old topic. The JAR is still one of the few US intelligence reports on the subject, and unless the general view of the JAR has been substantially revised, the view that was widely published back then (of which Goodin's article is only an example) is not outdated.
 * The reasoning about being misleading "relative to the overall investigation" sounds quite disturbing: what you're effectively saying is that by presenting the mainstream criticism of the JAR, some readers might draw conclusions that you think other aspects of the story show to be wrong.
 * This just looks like an attempt to hide the mainstream view of the JAR from readers. Given the discussion above about "purging" the article, the intent of this RfC is quite clear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This reads like a POV bludgeon, especially posted in the wrong section. Please move it to the appropriate location, Discussion, below and try to state it without the personal disparagement.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No - very dated now. Neutralitytalk 22:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No - time has shown this is undue. By the way, there is plenty of evidence in unclassified sources, the AP recently published some damning stuff, but it's only of tangential interest to the subject. Not fair to imply there is none, though. Geogene (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to comment on this, and I'll bow out of this particular bit of nastiness. I think Geogene's reason here speaks volumes and is what other editors are driving at.  That it's "not fair" because there is "plenty of evidence" elsewhere and the AP over there is doing great work, so we can't have bad things being said about this particular report.  Other editors are giving similar reasons, based on "other revelations" and "relative to the overall investigation" that we can't be allowing bad things to be said about this report. So completely typical with pretty much anything to do with partisan issues these days in this encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to familiarize yourself with NPOV. Your statement is evidence that you don't understand it. Geogene (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to consider what your actions are doing to the credibility of this encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm protecting the credibility of this encyclopedia from conspiracy theorists. Once I'm done with that, they'll take over, and then nobody will care about it either way. Editors such as myself are the only reason this place gets taken seriously by anyone, to the extent that anyone does. You said you were done here. Bye, Marteau. Geogene (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ars Technica writer in this case expressed a common lament over the evidence presented in the report in question. The hopes that it would provide more evidence than it did were common, and the let down was also common. This is not the stuff of "conspiracy theories" and was at the time (and still is) an issue on the minds of rational, thinking men and women.  Rather than "protect" this article from "conspiracy theorists", by scrubbing the article of legitimate issues with this report, you're going to make reasonable readers begin to wonder where, exactly, the "conspiracy" lies and that is damaging to the already shaky reputation of the encyclopedia for its coverage of political issues.  Marteau (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bear with me if I go off topic for a sec, if I may, Marteau. Do you believe that there was Russian interference in the 2016 US elections?
 * Yes, of course, that's part of their playbook for sowing dissent and encouraging division. This is not the place for this discussion, though, if you want to take it to my or your talk page, or in the discussion section, I'll be glad to give an honest question an honest answer. Marteau (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No - Even if this guy was an internationally recognized expert (and he isn’t), the revelations over the last year have long since rendered any point moot. And, I’m pretty sure this has been discussed before (which is what I said the last time it was discussed). O3000 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No - SYNTHy usage of dated off-topic opinion of non-notable journalist about an issue beyond his professional and technical expertise. SPECIFICO  talk  14:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Undue, outdated, possibly misleading. In general, all already outdated comments should be regularly removed from the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No As others have said this is historical and no longer current or relevant. I will add that id we had put it in the article at the time there would now be a good argument to remove it as outdated.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not following the argument that its historicity is a strike against inclusion. There's tons of historical stuff in the article, and documenting "historical" stuff is one of the features of an encyclopedia.  Our readers may come here exactly for that reason... not because of the pertinence of material today, but  because they wish to learn what happened and what the points of view were upon release of the report. Marteau (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The goal of Wikipedia is not to create a source book for historical research. That's not what an encyclopedia is, and when you use a source that way, you're using it in a primary, not a secondary, context. Geogene (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely ridiculous. People go to encylopedias all the time to learn about historic facts. And I just eyeballed the article a moment ago and it's well over over 80% history.  Again, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that the objection here is not that the material is "historic" but that it's historic in an WP:IDONTLIKETHIS sort of way. Marteau (talk)


 * No - This looks like a cherry picked source and quote that is being used to cast doubt on something that there's actually very little doubt about. As such, selecting and emphasizing that particular statement is UNDUE. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No - per above. Outdated and undue.Casprings (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No - Extremely WP:UNDUE, would make a good example of what WP:UNDUE is. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No The "Russia didn't do anything wrong" ship sailed long ago, an outdated report has no relevance to the present discussion. ValarianB (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The link to it is here - reckon it should be added to the RfC statement. Galobtter (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I just added it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Reckon the proposed text that has been inserted and removed several times should be included:

Dan Goodin, of the technology site Ars Technica, said he was disappointed in the report which provided "almost none of the promised evidence" linking Russia to the DNC hack. Marteau (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Has anything changed since the last time we had this discussion? If no, then there's even less of a reason to include it now then there was then.  Volunteer Marek  22:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't know it by the number of times it has been inserted and removed. This will hopefully make any consensus or lack thereof official.- MrX 22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Is this article about Goodin's joys and sorrows? The Russian interference is a fact. The report is not the topic of this WP article. The SZ bit covers all we need to say about it. SZ is a reliable source that cites expert analysis. SPECIFICO  talk  13:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A more honest title for this RfC would be, "Should we remove all politically uncomfortable criticisms of the US intelligence reports?" This is about politically purging the article of critical content, not about removing content that is somehow defective. The claim that 11-month-old information is no longer relevant is simply a canard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your lack of good faith has become boorish. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You guys have been at this for more than a year now. Above, there's even an open discussion about "purging" the article. I'm supposed to believe this is just about the sources being too old? Yes, I'm sure that of all the 11-month-old sources in the article, it's only a coincidence that the ones you guys are trying to purge from the article happen to be the only critical comments on US intelligence reports. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You've been at this more than a year now, and you admit that you're aware of the Talk page discussion that shows you don't have consensus to include. So, quit edit warring content into the article. Geogene (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This applies to our other edit warrior,, as well. Geogene (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He was topic banned from this article for this exact thing! True, after he wikilawyered it at User:Lord Roem's talk page, it got reduced to a warning, but still you'd figure he'd learned something from it.  Volunteer Marek   00:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * People living in Eastern European Mailing List houses shouldn't throw stones. Marek, how many Russia-related articles have you edit warred on in your 10+ years here? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, is there any reason not to include the caveat from the top of the JAR: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within."? Humanengr (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a standard legal disclaimer. Galobtter (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They don’t use it all the time. Any other objections? Humanengr (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's boilerplate, and you've been told that before. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like the two of you are talking about different notices. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by ‘boilerplate’? Humanengr (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Boilerplate" means it's a standard, copy-pasted disclaimer that the gov't slaps on all kinds of things before releasing them under the traffic light protocol or posting it online. The exact same text appears here and here for example. It's not specific to the source and should not be taken as a comment on its reliability. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not, e.g., Alert (TA17-164A) here, so that source does not apply the term universally. Humanengr (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that caveat re "warranties" at the top of the JAR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That’s the 10/6/2016 ‘Joint Statement’ (which has an ‘archive … oudated’ caveat). The 12/29/2016 JAR here has the ‘no warranties’ caveat. I’m focusing on the JAR here.Humanengr (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, different document. Still boilerplate. This really should not need explaining, government docs very frequently have a disclaimer like this attached. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, pretty much every random service has this kind of boilerplate statement. Galobtter (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @,, If anything, your 'very frequently', 'pretty much’ support my point.* It’s not universal. Hence meaningful here. Any other objections? (* BTW, my proposal doesn't need that support, but I'll leave that aside.)Humanengr (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. It’s boilerplate. We don’t include boilerplate disclaimers (Note: This edit may or may not represent my own views or the views of anyone I know and may not relate to reality as we know it. No animals were harmed in the production of this edit.) O3000 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote immediately above? Not every doc published by this agency has that 'boilerplate'. Ergo it's meaningful. Humanengr (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See: . That's what boilerplate means. O3000 (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If one does a more thorough search, one might find what I cited a bit earlier. Did you see that? Humanengr (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (I didn't understand what the link in your last message has to do with this issue.)
 * In the given context, the subject notice seems to be stating that the government doesn't warranty any commercial products or companies discussed in the report. In any case, the notice in that JAR primary source seems to be subject to interpretation (considering the different interpretations of editors here), so I think that a secondary reliable source would be needed if anything about this notice goes into the article. WP:NOR --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And that page has a link to the identical text at the bottom. It’s a boilerplate disclaimer used word for word in a vast number of documents. They are even common at the end of all e-mails sent by innumerable companies. Lawyers tell you to stick this kind of disclaimer on everything. I have one at the bottom of every page of a tiny, free forum I run. O3000 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I should add, every page in Wikipedia has a Terms and Conditions link which contains just such a boilerplate disclaimer. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This and the next RfC are poorly worded. The purpose of RfCs is to invite previously uninvolved editors to weigh in.  That requires a question that is both neutral and easily understood.  Don't expect everyone to know who Dan Goodin or Kevin Poulsen are, which DHS report they criticized or what the issue was.  At the very least, the disputed edits should be presented at the beginning of the RfC and since the two writers said basically the same thing, the two should be combined.
 * A better question would be whether the article should mention that the intelligence report alleging Russian interference in the election provided no evidence, as noted in multiple sources. Of course there may be good reasons why no evidence was supplied and why we should believe the conclusions anyway.  So we can't quote Goodin and Poulsen a saying that was a weakness without providing the other side.
 * TFD (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They are both very short, simple, straightforward questions. I have no idea how they could be worded more neutrally. Making the question broader doesn't address the recurrent edit warring over this particular material. Making it more specific by listing the last edit made opens it up for someone to change a word or two in the text and claim that he RfC was about something else. The WP:GAMING on this article has already been a huge time suck, so avoiding more of the same seems beneficial.- MrX 15:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider a reader who knows nothing about the topic other than what s//he has read here. The article says, "Dan Goodin, of the technology site Ars Technica, said he was disappointed in the report which provided "almost none of the promised evidence" linking Russia to the DNC hack."  The reader doesn't know who Goodin or what the tech site are or whether Goodin's observations are based on reality.  Adding another similar source that says the same thing doesn't help.  TFD (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but. The purpose is to quash the edit warring. And there are two separate edit wars. See also SPECIFICO  talk  15:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with TFD here, there is no purposed text or section referenced. A simple should this person be mentioned is way to vague. In the future please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of censorship or bias are PA's please stop.17:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Sorry missed out a tilde.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently in the section December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report there is similar material that is sourced to a german language newspaper: "Persons quoted in the article told the paper that the unclassified evidence provided by the Joint Analysis Report did not provide proof of Russian culpability." (Dec 30, 2016) It may be helpful to have the english language Ars Technica article (Dec 30, 2016) there as a source too, for readers who don't understand german. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The SZ article is making a different point. SPECIFICO  talk  23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Marteau presented previously here a quote of the disputed edit, "Dan Goodin, of the technology site Ars Technica, said he was disappointed in the report which provided "almost none of the promised evidence" linking Russia to the DNC hack." The point looks similar to the point of the quote I gave in my previous message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The SZ bit has surrounding article text that makes clear the context of the words you pulled out and why the smoking gun is missing. And the SZ journalist cites accredited experts, whereas Goodin... SPECIFICO  talk  23:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By going to another aspect, it looks like you concede that the two quotes (re edits using SZ, Ars Technica) make similar points.
 * Would you care to provide evidence of what you are saying re context, etc.? (For reference, here are links to the SZ article and the Ars Technica article.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point Marteau. This is a better location. I will copy my post here. Bear with me if I go off topic for a sec, if I may, Marteau. Do you believe that there was Russian interference in the 2016 US elections? SPECIFICO talk  23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly. They have a history of it, the only question is in the particulars. These days it's hard, though, to be sure of motives and whether or not an apparent motive or action is a smoke screen or the product of a false flag. There's plenty of dirty tricks and deception in the tool boxes of  many agents and agencies in situations like this, and it is healthy to maintain a skepticism regarding pretty much any alleged action or alleged motive coming from literally any participant in these matters.  But yes, to reiterate, of course Russian entities had involvement in the Presidential race.  Marteau (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But then it seems to me that the current text summarizes the key points. It focuses on the report itself (as a report) and explains, per the Suddeutsche Zeitung article, why some information - classified and possibly compromising the methods of collection - was omitted from the public version. This seems to be an appropriate and well-sourced mention. The proposals to give more emphasis to what is not in the unclassified document read more as an insinuation that the conclusions of the report were reached without any basis in fact. Moreover, since we now have other confirmation of the Russian interference in the public domain (covered all through this article) we now know that the unclassified report's conclusions have been independently corroborated. Therefore as editors we should not give UNDUE emphasis to the possibility that the conclusions are without basis and are incorrect.  I acknowledge that there are some editors here who do not believe that the Russians interfered in the US elections. At this point, given the weight of RS reporting and analysis, that POV is WP:FRINGE and should not be part of this article.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that when we work on this article we shouldn't consider our own personal beliefs about whether or not there was Russian interference? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For those who are saying the Ars Technica article is out of date can you point me to the sources that had superseded it? Specifically, this statement which I think is under discussion: Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is not the only (or even main) source of information about the hacks. So criticism based upon it seem to be all a bit undue. We have moved so far on now that discussing this seems rather pointless (especially now evidence is coming to light of hacking of the shear breadth of then Russian operation). It really does read now like "well yes I know there is evidence, but you did mispell that word". It adds nothing to what we now know, and in fact makes a lot of those who used these flaws in the report to argue there was no interference look (at best) very mistaken. Besides, we do mention the doubts.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, Re "The fact that it is not the only (or even main) source of information about the hacks." — Is the "it" you're referring to the JAR? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case it hasn't been superseded at all, it is still valid for inclusion as a criticism of the JAR. You can say it's WP:UNDUE now, but I think Ars Technica is a particularly strong source, and that we will see more of this in the future. The number of media sources makes it look like there is a "mainstream" version but news orgs are not scholarship, and their reports are more or less consistent with one another. This skews the balance of our articles, but I don't think all the dots have been connected yet. It is still a bit early in the process to be settled on a "mainstream" version. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have criticism of JAR, and JAR bis not the focus of this article. It deserves the coverage we now give it and no more.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine but I think Süddeutsche Zeitung could be replaced with Ars Technica and should under WP:V where we are supposed to prefer English language sources when they are available. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)#
 * That is a more valid argument, but does the suggested Ars Technica article, say the same thing? If not then it cannot replace the source we have now. Thus we go back to why is Dan Goodin's criticism worthy of inclusion? What does it add to the article now, that we need to know?Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

So we go back to the question of what is it that people want to include?Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, SZ is an established mainstream publication with rigorous editorial standards. Ars Technica is a fledgeling publication. The SZ bit cites acknowledged experts and presents their analysis. It's a solid secondary source. The Ars bit is the voice of a nonWP:notable journalist, not an cybersecurity expert, and is a primary source for his opinion. Third, the SZ bit indicates why the classified "smoking gun" information cannot be published to the world. It makes clear that this does not demonstrate lack of evidence, but is rather a necessary and routine protection of sensitive information. So there are many reasons why the SZ trumps Ars T in this case.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate, Goodin uses Robert M. Lee as a source, who was a Cyber Warfare Operations Officer in the USAF, and that the specific issues discussed by Lee are due for inclusion based on his background and expertise. I would also be interested in the answer to Bob's question above that you provide more specifics about the assertions regarding the content the in two articles. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC) [Here's a translation of the german article. Also, Ars Technica article and our article section December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC) ]

noIt's undue and outdated. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The question of whether or not outdated
The Ars Technica article by Goodin is dated Dec 30, 2016, and was to be used in the section December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report. Note that all the sources in that section are dated either Dec 29, 2016 or Dec 30, 2016. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's comparing apples to eggplants. If the source is outdated, it needs to be removed or replaced with more recent information and sources. If nothing's changed, there's no problem leaving a reference from 6 months or 6 years ago. The age alone tells us nothing. SPECIFICO  talk  02:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For comparison, here's a translation of the german article used in that section and a link to the Ars Technica article, both dated Dec 30, 2016. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, so the Ars Tech thing says "bitter debate likely to rage on" -- well that proved to be incorrect. Today there is no debate and no doubt of the Russians' interference in RS reporting. So that only proves that we deprecate that Ars T. and do not use it from now on.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All that means is that we don't use Ars Technica for that particular statement, which we wouldn't anyway because it is WP:CRYSTAL. The article is still secondary for Lee's opinion, and Rob Graham, both experts. Add to that the fact that there "no doubt ... in RS reporting" today is not that important - going back to neworgs in general, sometimes we use them because a subject is notable and they are the only sources available, but over time we will have better sources available - this is entirely normal. This subject isn't going anywhere if the most recent stories are any indication:  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment the text that was proposed for the article prominently features Jeffrey Carr, while the source mentions Robert M. Lee as well as Jeffrey Carr. Robert M. Lee has a blog. In his most recent entry, dated August 17, Lee strongly criticizes Carr for doubting that Fancy Bear/APT 29 is the Russian government. Here are some quotes: The attribution on APT28 and APT29 is some of the most solid attribution the community has ever done. .... That being said, he (Carr) is not an expert on attribution, not an expert on these groups, nor has any reason to be cited in conjunction with them. He’s often widely criticized in the community when he tries to do attribution and it’s often painfully full of 101 intelligence analysis failures. ....If you are doing research/writing on niche topics please find people with expertise in that niche topic (Jeffrey Carr is not an expert on attribution). Wow. So, while Carr is still a cybersecurity expert, we probably shouldn't consider Carr an expert specifically on Fancy Bear/APT 29 or attribution of the DNC hacks; basically he shouldn't appear in this article. And since the Ars Technica piece quoted both of these people, we shouldn't use that piece as a source either. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ars Technica is a secondary source for the quotes in the article, anything beyond that is WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY and we usually don't use primary blogs, even if they are from experts. It's just a question of handling the WP:RS correctly, and our guidelines when they are followed are pretty good and thorough for avoiding these types of errors. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that Lee says Carr isn't an expert in attribution, and that means the Ars Technica piece is out. Geogene (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean anything of the sort, we don't not use a news source because Lee said something in his blog that hasn't been reported anywhere else. With that kind of logic, we would never be able to use any news sources, ever. What I don't see is any compelling argument to exclude Ars Technica as a source when Ars Technica is perfectly fine as WP:RS that we use routinely in other articles. This seems like a lot of hairsplitting over adding a single citation. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you've heard several such compelling arguments. This is just one more. Geogene (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As an editor who has been entirely uninvolved in this article, and who is likely to stay uninvolved I can add this comment - what I don't like to see is two open RfCs on an article about whether particular sources should be excluded. No proposed changes, no details on what statements they should be included or excluded for, just blanket exclusion of particular sources - that is not how discussions of WP:RS are supposed to work, as each source is evaluated for whether it is WP:RS for the statement it is being cited for - no WP:RS should be generally excluded. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason these two RfCs came about was because some editors were edit warring content into the article, against apparent consensus. When someone wants to include content, and that content is disputed, then the WP:ONUS is on the party that wants inclusion to get consensus for it. Nobody seems to able to do that, and a lot of objections have been raised, from a lot of editors. Geogene (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, why wasn't this RfC about the specific edit? Instead, it poses an improper question about a blanket approval for any edit that uses the Ars Technica article, which is difficult to support for any reliable source. Note that the RfC is by an editor who opposed in this survey the use of the Ars Technica article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that this has moved way on from there, so the JAR is simply put no longer relevant, so excess commentary on it seems rather pointless. It does not matter how flawed the report was, we now have much more evidence and (indeed) a full on investigation that has now led to some (related) charges being brought. This is why I think it is now outdated, it tells us nothing about the state of the accusations and investigations now (Which is what matters).Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It actually does not matter if you think it is now outdated and most relevant to the state of the investigation right now. We have a section on the December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report, so we have sources in that section that report on and analyze the December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report. This is not a breaking news organization, we are giving historical information on the Russian interference with the election, which at the time the December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report played a part of. If you think it is no longer relevant the solution would be remove the whole section, not a specific source. PackMecEng (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We are no removing a specific source, we are arguing about including it. And (again) what is it going to be used for, a whole paragraph or one sentence? Is it the best source to use, are there other sources out there that analyse the material better?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would assume (since the RFC is very poorly worded) that it would be the information that was edit warred in and out of the article. Which was "Cybersecurity analyst Jeffrey Carr called CrowdStrike's inferences pointing to the Russian intelligence services into question, because the X-Agent tool was freely available for anyone to download." With all this starting with a restoration of that information to the article. So again what are your objections to the information? PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or it could be anything. As to my objection to this specific text, was this all the document talked about? If it was not why is the one tit bit important? As well as did CrowdStrike author the report?Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point since no change is purposed from this RFC, might be best just to abort it and start a new properly setup one. Then we can work on clearly laying on what information from Ars Technica should be included. PackMecEng (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or we could recognize the obvious, and acknowledge that the people that were edit warring the disputed content into the article have failed to make a case for its inclusion. Time to move on. Geogene (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This RFC was not a case for inclusion, which is the problem. From how it is setup, it reads is Ars Technica a RS. Which is an obvious yes. Even you noted above what is the purposed text? Time to move on is right though, abort the RFC and start a proper one. PackMecEng (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Geogene has it right. There is no support for any proposed content based on the ArsT article. The RfC was an attempt to demonstrate that lack of support, so as to stop the edit-warring. That having been accomplished, we should move on to more constructive uses of our time and attention. SPECIFICO talk  15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that good advice to follow is the following from the top of the page WP:BRD.


 * Unfortunately, this RfC didn't discuss the specific edit. So editors who might have supported the specific edit or the use of the source for some other specific edit, couldn't vote because they didn't know how the source would be used. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. I tried to add the specific edit in question to the RFC  here (and before anyone !voted or commented) but someone moved it to the middle of the discussion section. Don't know who, and I don't care, but that move only served to add to this fiasco. Marteau (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is because you did not start the RFC, so you do not get to set it's perimeters, you can suggest alternatives, which should be done as a comment, not an alteration of the RFC itself.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be perfectly clear,I didn't "alter" the RFC. I left the text of the RFC be.  What I did do was add context immediately following the RFC. Marteau (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review the 11 month history of this. It was reverted but its been edit warred back in without consensus. MrX did Rfc to put that to a stop. SPECIFICO  talk  16:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Please review the 11 month history of this." There have been 3,935 edits to the article and 9,619 edits to this talk page.  You're quite the taskmaster there, aren't you?  Are  other !voters supposed to review those 12K+ edits too, or do you reserve your condescending advice for just me?  Marteau (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing condescending about it. And I'm sure you could use the handy "search archives" function to speed your task. Some editors here are expressing good faith concern about why we are dealing with this tendentious refusal to drop the bad content/outdated sources, and the reason lies in the history of this page. It's already been given to you in narrative form, but an alternative is to review the history and see it for yourself. Hence my suggeston. Not a command. Believe me, I have no concern about whether you do it or don't do it or whatnot. SPECIFICO  talk  17:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comments don't appear very credible if you don't provide links to support them. I'm perfectly willing to consider your remarks seriously if you provide links. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically the rundown for the past year on this subject has been. Someone adds or removes that source, they get reverted by someone else. It goes to talk for about a month ending in everyone is sick of this no consensus. Rince and repeat every 2-3 months. Sound about right SPECIFICO? PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The solution is to block or topic ban--in a substantial way--the next editor that tries to add the contentious material for some combination of edit warring/tendentious editing/civil POV pushing. That hasn't been done yet, but we're nearing the point where further discussion of the same issue is unlikely to produce improvement. Soon we will reach the point where the minority/opposition will choose between accepting that they don't have consensus and resigning from the article, or gets themselves decisively sanctioned in some way or another. I can't make that choice for others, obviously, but this is a typical pattern for controversial articles and the local community seems to be in a holding pattern awaiting one of those inevitable outcomes. In the meantime, this talk page is an example of how staggeringly inefficient the Wikipedia editing process can be. Geogene (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, people removing reliably sourced information from the article because of their POV is an issue. Which is why it should be left in the article. But seriously, there has been no consensus, not consensus against. Very different things. PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, see WP:ONUS. Disputed material must have consensus in favor, otherwise, it gets deleted. Geogene (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, so lets get an RFC going for it and get consensus. This is not the discussion for that, as has been mentioned by several people now. PackMecEng (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, I looked and I did find discussions easier than I thought . Since the source hasn't been accepted, even though I think it is worthwhile, it probably isn't worth continuing the discussion. That's Wikipedia.
 * However, since the only source in the section for criticism is the german language article, I think we should add some english language article containing criticism for the benefit of the reader. Also, we might add a link in the german cite for translation, although I'm not sure if using an online translator is acceptable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a general comment. When an article is edited with bias, it will be missing information. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bob, thanks for checking the history. As to your suggestion we hock up an English language mention of this, please have a look at WP:WEIGHT. Basicaly, if there are virtually no English language articles that are RS secondary discussion, then it would be WP:UNDUE to include any text based on any outlier we might find.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is why the RfC should have been clearly proposed from the start. Apparently the issue here is an edit about Carr, which I found out only after long discussions. Uninvolved editors 'voting' on an RfC should not have to dig through a one year long edit history to find out what the RfC is about. As for the basic statement that the JAR report was criticized by security experts for not offering "proof" of Russian involvement, this has been covered in multiple articles - it was covered by The Hill, Fortune, Ars Technica - The Fortune article also discusses the same sources as Goodin (Lee, Carr) - I found this all on the first page of Google search results, without any database access or special access to sources. Seraphim System ( talk ) 00:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All weak sources and marginal opinion. The issue was quite clear to all but newcomers to the article, who would have no interest in this UNDUE bit anyway.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is, none of those sources are weak sources for this article - they are on par with the other sources used in the article. You are the only one talking about UNDUE, I simply proposed adding an English language source for something that is already in the article for WP:V. In the future please anticipate that uninvolved editors may wish to participate in the RfC, as one of the purposes of an RfC is to hear opinions from uninvolved editors. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seraphim System, You are right and you make good reasonable points. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of editors here are against including sources that criticize the report, unless it is in a foreign language like the german article, which  is not very helpful to readers looking for more information about the criticism.
 * Although the RfC was improperly posed to more certainly get the desired result of excluding the source, if a specific edit was proposed instead, I think it would also be rejected. It's a consequence of the editing environment here, which I don't see changing. But that wouldn't stop unaware occasional editors who see things missing from the article and try to make edits, which are reverted and may lead to more Talk page debates, regardless of this RfC. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Geogene, I'm back to get more of your thoughts regarding Lee's criticism of Carr. In Lee's blog, his criticism of Carr stemmed from a quote of Carr in a New York Times article. Lee wrote, "Jeffrey Carr and his quote is confusing to most readers because he is trying to detract from the attribution where he states: 'there is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the D.N.C. attack to the G.R.U., F.S.B. or any agency of the Russian government.' " My concern here is that Lee could have refuted Carr's quote by giving a single piece of evidence, but he didn't and instead attacked Carr's competence. Why do you suppose Lee didn't provide the evidence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bob, this question, asking for Geogene's surmise regarding a blog, is not on topic for this RfC and any such chat can go (if anywhere) on a user talk page. Please don't make any further meta-comments or solicit personal opinions on article talk pages. SPECIFICO  talk  16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

, Can any of the ‘No’ votes provide an RS about the DHS Joint Analysis Report that indicates what Dan Goodin said about that report has been superseded? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a leading question, it's irrelevant to the discussion of due WP:WEIGHT and because the outcome of this RfC is very clear on its face, I hope that none of us prolongs the thread by further comment here. SPECIFICO  talk  00:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your recent comment and the Nov 19 one above may have the effect of suppressing legitimate discussion. Also, they seem to be a distraction, which  involves discussing your inappropriate comments instead of article development. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a 'no', that "what Dan Goodin said about that report has not been superseded". Thx, Humanengr (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Of course that doesn't change the strength of my initial argument, which is that the material is WP:UNDUE.- MrX 01:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't see where you indicate how, in your view, the DHS report or comment on it was WP:UNDUE. Can you elaborate? Humanengr (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As this article is not about that report it is irrelevant. As thew report was not the basis for (nor the main, or even significant) piece of evidence used to substantiate the allegations it is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the proposal now to remove the section on the DHS report? Humanengr (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see those words being used.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I misread or did you say “the report … is irrelevant”? Humanengr (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, allow me to restate: is it the report or criticism of the report or both that is irrelevant? Humanengr (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That depends on what we are using it for (and saying). Now there may well be a valid discussion about removed all reference to (what is now) a very dated report. But that is not what this sub thread is about. It is about how much weight we should give criticism of it. Now as we do (in fact) have some criticism of it it seems that adding material does not improve our understanding of what is now happening, and thus is irrelevant to this article (which IS what I said).Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, How about using the Goodin article as an additional source for the material that is already there. There would be some rewriting because the german language source that is presently used there alone is mentioned twice in inline text. The Goodin article would add an english language source to the german language source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I do not see what it adds to our understanding of the topic of the article. It does not need rewriting, it does it's job of being an overview of a relatively (now) unimportant part of the sequence of events.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It adds English! This is the english language Wikipedia! --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Without adding any material, the rewrite could be from
 * An article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung discussed the difficulty of proof in matters of cybersecurity. Persons quoted in the article told the paper that the unclassified evidence provided by the Joint Analysis Report did not provide proof of Russian culpability. One analyst told the Süddeutsche Zeitung that U.S. intelligence services could be keeping some information secret to protect their sources and analysis methods.

to
 * Some articles discussed the difficulty of proof in matters of cybersecurity and said that the unclassified evidence provided by the Joint Analysis Report did not provide proof of Russian culpability. U.S. intelligence services could be keeping some information secret to protect their sources and analysis methods.

Note that the rewrite actually reduces the amount of text. BTW, the english translation of the title of the german article is Many indications against Russia, but little evidence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category 'Foreign intervention'
A recent edit removed the category 'Foreign intervention' that this article is a part of. The edit summary was, "This is a great-great grandfather category, so it's already implicitly included by being categorized in a decendant cat. See WP:SUBCAT."

Looking at the category Foreign intervention, we see that there are no subcategories that this article fits in. Thus the claim of the above edit summary is false and the category 'Foreign intervention' should be restored. [Note added Dec 13, 2017: There is now a subcategory Foreign electoral intervention.] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It still makes no sense, ipso facto sempervivum excelsior.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the wikilink Foreign intervention in my above message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific and explain your problem in understanding what I wrote? You might also explain what you mean by "ipso facto sempervivum excelsior" with regard to the current issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Meaning is clear, ipso facto. Feel free to disregard. SPECIFICO  talk  16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Now what about my question: Could you be more specific and explain your problem in understanding what I wrote? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you and MrX concerned that Humanengr would use the presence of the category to try to do something that hurts the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I was mistaken about it being a parent category (although I was sure I checked it). In any case, I don't believe it's an appropriate category. I'm not aware that the majority of sources have described Russia's interference as "foreign intervention". If you can get consensus from other editors, I won't object to it being restored.- MrX 19:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @, Ref 2 in Foreign electoral intervention labels such as "electoral intervention". A quote from there:
 * "An electoral intervention is defined as a situation in which one or more sovereign countries intentionally undertakes specific actions to influence an upcoming election in another sovereign country in an overt or covert manner that they believe will favor or hurt one of the sides contesting that election and which incurs, or may incur, significant costs to the intervener(s) or the intervened country."
 * I am not aware of any WP:RS that object to such designation. Make sense? Humanengr (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't make sense. That's not a reference for this article's subject. This entire discussion is a colossal waste of time. Please don't ping me again.- MrX 22:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of specific news articles re this article's subject:
 * WaPo: various mentions, including "John Adams was no more pleased than Hillary Clinton is now with this foreign electoral intervention."
 * Newsweek: "Their investigation into 2016 is not yet complete, and open issues include the question of Trump campaign or other American assistance to the Russian electoral intervention."
 * The Hill: "To complicate attribution of Russian electoral intervention …"
 * Boston Globe: "there is little evidence that Trump and his Republican cohort are all that bothered by Moscow’s electoral intervention."
 * WSJ: "51% of respondents said they believed Russia intervened".
 * Forbes: "Special Counsel Mueller has been given a broad charge and no deadline -- a formula for trouble. He is supposed to “investigate Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election.”
 * Humanengr (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I can understand some rationale behind placing this in the "Foreign intervention" category. However, if you look at the pages in that category, every one is about a military intervention. Clearly whatever may have occurred in this case falls short of that. Despite a few hyperbolic statements about "act of war," etc., no Russian troops have yet arrived. If there was a subcat called "Foreign electoral intervention," that would be more appropriate. I'm not seeing some ulterior motive in the addition of the cat (e.g. shift of WP:SCOPE), though I don't think the cat is warranted. -Darouet (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're almost correct about the pages in the category Foreign intervention. One of them, Foreign electoral intervention, isn't about military intervention and even includes reference to our article  and discussion of the subject of our article . --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did see that, and thought about including a mention of it in my comment. But I think that overall the point holds: that category, excepting the page you've linked, refers to (for now) a very different kind of intervention. From a hypothetical perspective, if the category were to include foreign electoral "interventions" of various kinds, there could be many hundreds of very different entries, and their number could increase by a dozen each year. In that context I feel like there are more drawbacks than there are benefits to adding the category. -Darouet (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like this suggestion is going anywhere, so I'll withdraw it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@, thx for the kind words. The net effect at this point is for ‘Russian interference in the 2016 United States election’ to be seen as a one-of-a-kind event. Is that the desired result? Humanengr (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I do think your suggested category would suffice. But I’m not clear on why having "many hundreds of very different entries” is problematic. Having such would seem to allow/promote sub-categorization and coherence across WP and be informative for the audience. [Added:] As WP now stands, if we go with the more focused category of 'Foreign electoral intervention', the number of included pages would be rather small, starting with the Foreign electoral intervention article and some of the dozen or so main articles referenced there. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Best thing at this point would be to remove some of the long list of categories already in the article. Consider our readers and how categories are used by readers and editors. SPECIFICO  talk  19:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the "Categories: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections | Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 | Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016" box at the bottom. Humanengr (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia controversial topicsWikipedia articles that use American EnglishB-Class Computer Security articlesB-Class Computer Security articles of High-importanceHigh-importance Computer Security articlesB-Class Computing articlesUnknown-importance Computing articlesAll Computing articlesAll Computer Security articlesC-Class Crime-related articlesTop-importance Crime-related articlesWikiProject Crime articlesB-Class Donald Trump articlesHigh-importance Donald Trump articlesWikiProject Donald Trump articlesB-Class Elections and Referendums articlesWikiProject Elections and Referendums articlesB-Class Espionage articlesTop-importance Espionage articlesB-Class Hillary Clinton articlesHigh-importance Hillary Clinton articlesWikiProject Hillary Clinton articlesB-Class International relations articlesMid-importance International relations articlesWikiProject International relations articlesB-Class Internet articlesLow-importance Internet articlesWikiProject Internet articlesB-Class Journalism articlesLow-importance Journalism articlesWikiProject Journalism articlesStart-Class intelligence articlesIntelligence task force articlesStart-Class military science, technology, and theory articlesMilitary science, technology, and theory task force articlesStart-Class military history articlesB-Class politics articlesUnknown-importance politics articlesB-Class American politics articlesHigh-importance American politics articlesAmerican politics task force articlesWikiProject Politics articlesB-Class Russia articlesRussia articles with incomplete B-Class checklistsRussia articles needing attention to referencing and citationRussia articles needing attention to coverage and accuracyRussia articles needing attention to structureRussia articles needing attention to grammarRussia articles needing attention to supporting materialsMid-importance Russia articlesWikiProject Russia articles with no associated task forceMid-importance B-Class Russia articlesWikiProject Russia articlesB-Class United States articlesB-Class United States articles of High-importanceHigh-importance United States articlesB-Class United States Government articlesTop-importance United States Government articlesWikiProject United States Government articlesB-Class United States presidential elections articlesHigh-importance United States presidential elections articlesWikiProject United States presidential elections articlesWikiProject United States articlesWikipedia pages referenced by the pressWikipedia requests for comment SPECIFICO talk  20:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can someone make sense of SPECIFICO's last two posts for me? The subject at-issue is not categories on the talk page but on the article page.Humanengr (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The intention here seems to be to insinuate that hijacking foreign elections is something everyone does all the time, and therefore what Russia did is totally okay and not a major international incident at all. That might or might not be a valid personal opinion, but categories shouldn't be used to insinuate something into an article that sources don't allow to be stated explicitly. By the way, you can't just casually pivot from "no proof, so it probably didn't happen" arguments to a "this is normal, everyone does it, so it's not a big deal" arguments while pretending that you did not just create a huge internal self-contradiction. At least, not without expending a lot of other editors' good faith assumption. Geogene (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Where did I say anything to the effect of
 * “hijacking foreign elections is something everyone does all the time”
 * “what Russia did is [a)] totally okay and [b)] not a major international incident at all” [under the assumption they did what they are accused of]
 * "this is normal”
 * “everyone does it”
 * “so it's not a big deal"
 * Or skip that and just answer questions that will advance the discussion:
 * Is this the only instance of foreign election intervention?
 * What do you mean by ‘major’?
 * Humanengr (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @, It might help in discussion below if you could answer the last question above. TIA, Humanengr (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Re your "hijacking foreign elections is something everyone does all the time": Per Foreign electoral intervention: "the United States and Russia (along with the former Soviet Union) 'intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 — an average of once in every nine competitive elections'." (citing this, this, and this). From the second of those cites: "the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36."


 * So, those two 'great powers' (from the title of the first cite) play a substantive role. Humanengr (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There are only 3 categories appended to the article at present and that probably isn't enough. However I agree with Geogene that a "Foreign Intervention" cat should not be added in order to demonstrate that electoral intervention is common. Considering all the other major issues with this article, adding a category to make a roundabout point is not useful to anyone. -Darouet (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please clarify: What do you mean by ‘common’? In your view, is this event “one-of-a-kind” or “common” or ?? Humanengr (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Foreign interference in elections is common: it happens all the time. But this affair (the German article is titled "2016 Hacking affair between Russia and the United States") is certainly unprecedented. Humanengr I don't think this discussion will be productive. -Darouet (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Pardon — I don't understand the reference to the German article. (I don't see it on the talk or article pages.) Humanengr (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that to my knowledge, in U.S. history, there has never been a political event like that described by this article. -Darouet (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I sure hope you meant to say "never previously".  SPECIFICO  talk  00:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Lol, I did mean "never previously," though perhaps you and I interpret the word "political event" differently. Let's just say that always have and still do hold with those crazy POV FRINGE UNDUE nutbags at the BBC : "Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a former FBI director, is investigating alleged Russian interference in the US election to help elect Mr Trump." -Darouet (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with "political event" it has to do with, if you deny the contents of the article you gots bigger problems than some category down under. SPECIFICO  talk  01:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's your attitude to the BBC line I quoted? -Darouet (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Abject indifference. Call them up and ask them if they doubt the Russians interference.  Put your mind at ease. Meanwhile, I'll check in with NASA about the moon landing.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @, thanks — your “in U.S. history” is illuminative. I am not debating that point. But the issue is broader than 'U.S. as target' as you and Bob discussed above re Foreign electoral intervention. The topic of 'Russian electoral intervention in the U.S.’ is not a one-of-a-kind. It seems, by that earlier discussion, you agree with that. My point in this post is to return focus to that, so we can have that as solid foundation and move forward. Ok? Humanengr (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, can you elaborate on ‘drawbacks’ you mentioned above? TIA, Humanengr (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a related side remark, I created Category:Foreign electoral intervention as a subcategory of Category:Foreign intervention. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Typo
"In April 2017, Reuters cited several U.S. officials as saying that the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISI)"

Should be:

"In April 2017, Reuters cited several U.S. officials as saying that the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS)"

Michael0658 (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Is "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" …
[RfC template removed per suggestion of ]

Is "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" the only instance of one nation interfering in another nation's election? If not, what would be a helpful label for such activities — foreign electoral intervention/interference/influence, … ? All answers welcome. Humanengr (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Abort – This formulation makes no sense. An RfC needs to make precise suggestions about improving the article, and Wikipedia is not a forum about various states intervening in the affairs of others. — JFG talk 02:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is related to the above Talk section discussing categories for this article. I think DN's question below is along those lines. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Question What effect would this categorization have on the article? What are the pros and cons? DN (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx, . Good question. My starting point is questioning the propriety and helpfulness of invoking the eponymous category. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Further fodder: Having 'Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections' as a category for an article of that name unquestionably yields the impression it is one-of-a-kind. (Hence my questions above to others, heretofore unanswered.) In my view that is grossly misleading and intended to remove from consideration other comparable actions worldwide. The onus here is on those who want to prevent such consideration. Does that help? Humanengr (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, Humanengr thinks this is another way to normalize and legitimize Russia's behavior without having to find sources to support their position. They're WP:NOTHERE, and there are WP:EXHAUST issues here as well. Geogene (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Bob tried to add that category without consensus. I consider that edit warring, since it has been under discussion for days and I don't see any evidence of consensus. I won't hesitate to request sanctions the next time you do that. Reminder: in a dispute, the burden is on you to get consensus for disputed text before adding it. Geogene (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The dispute was about Category:Foreign intervention. I added Category:Foreign electoral intervention, which seems to be a good category for this article. When I added it, I thought that it might be reverted for whatever reason, and if so I wouldn't contest it. I thought it was worth a try but I wasn't interested in a long debate about it.
 * I also note that you removed a link to the article Foreign electoral intervention from the See also section . Note that this link in the See also section that you removed had been accepted by other editors for six days after I added it on Dec 9 . I'm not interested in getting into a debate on that either, so I won't pursue it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. It looks like you made two reverts in less than a day. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because you don't understand the edit warring policy, Bob. Geogene (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I had in mind the notice at the top of this page, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." It would be helpful to me and possibly others if you showed the excerpt from policy that you think exempts your reverts. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I found at WP:3rr the following, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." So in the case currently being considered, the two consecutive reverts count as one and the order that an editor make no more than one revert in 24 hours, is not violated. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is this controversial? This is pretty obviously a case of foreign electoral interference. I really don't see the problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because its stated purpose is a nationalistic POV-push. Diffs, . There may or may not be policy-based rationales that could be made for it, but given the intent, it's not my responsibility to go find them. Geogene (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think motivations really matter when it comes to a good edit. If the edit is good, but is being done for the explicit purposes of a blatantly obvious POV shift, then I'd say that it stands to reason that the article had a not-so-obvious POV slant leaning the other way to begin with. I mean, if you're opposing a good edit because it's an admitted POV push, doesn't that then make your opposition a POV counter-push? So in the end, you're trying to keep good changes out of the article due to your own POV...
 * Listen, I agree with you that Bob seems to have a marked POV. We've agreed on most subjects of discussion on this page and several other AmPol pages where we've participated together. You must know by now that I'm an admitted left-wing editor trying my damnedest to be neutral. So please take my advice when I say that if the only reason you're opposing this is because of the obvious or admitted intentions of the editor intent on making the change, then it's time to step back and let it happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)Geogene, I don't think it would be productive for anyone to get into a discussion with you about what you think is in another editor's mind. In any case, those diffs in your message weren't about categories or the specific Category:Foreign electoral intervention that the above editor was commenting on. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MPants at work, Same comment for you, I don't think it would be productive for anyone to get into a discussion with you about what you think is in another editor's mind. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because that's what Jimbo's talk page is for, right Bob? . . Geogene (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think that we should not consider our personal beliefs about the topic of a controversial article when editing. Editors should simply edit according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bob, here's a key guideline: WP:TE. SPECIFICO  talk  19:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MPants, a key thing is that you've presented a valid justification for the content. Up to this point a number of editors have appeared to be reticent to offer support, and I didn't want argument to exhaustion to be an end run around apparent consensus. But I'm also aware of an underlying absurdity in this instance, and will consider what you're saying here. Geogene (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do. And thank you for being so willing to consider what other editors are saying as they disagree with you. It's a truly rare trait, especially in this subject.
 * Way to lower the bar, there. Keep it up and we'll be calling each other "faggots" in no time. Seriously; if all you have to say are complaints about other editors, then shut the fuck up. Same goes for . ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx, Mpants. @, thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MPants is probably right. I think the justification originally given is a bad one, but if not for that it wouldn't be controversial. If it went to an RfC,it would pass. So I don't object. Geogene (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx, . Iiuc, you concur it is noncontroversial (in line w Mpants above) to include this article in the category ‘Foreign electoral intervention’. So would an RfC to add ‘Foreign electoral intervention’ in the bottom nav box and/or ‘See also’ (the latter b/c the former does not appear on mobile) be the appropriate route at this point? Humanengr (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Being non-neutral by following 'respective sources'
The article is biased toward Clinton/anti-Trump SIG because it mostly cites Clinton supporting sources. The main point is that the article lists several episodes of expectations of conforming meddling of russians into elections which came not true. This should be mentioned at the beginning of the article.

My suggestion is to improve neutrality of the article by 1) growing part related to forensic analysis and adding more technical content 2) writing in the beginning that despite many claims there is no conclusive evidence that russian intelligence agencies & hacker groups affected outcome of US election by direct Putin order. Currently the article stats that "agencies concluded" which does not approximate the state of things.

As of January 2018 when all expectations that evidence will eventually arrive came false, the best approximation is like this ''that russian inference - is series of russia accusations in influencing US election which were not supported by strong evidence. Some evidence link DNC hacks with russian hacking groups'' --109.167.137.218 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually as the investigation is still ongoing it is too early to say they have not found evidence, just that they have not yet released it.
 * As to your suggestions
 * 1) As I said above we do not have "forensic Analysis" because many of those who published opinions have not seen the evidence that the FBI and others used to assert they were reasonably confidant of interference.
 * 2) Here you have a valid point, we should say that there is (At this time) no conclusive proof, but it would help your case to produce some RS saying this).
 * As to your last point, who said that Jan 2018 would be some magic point when all the evidence would be released? Also the US itel services think there is a string case.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * True, investigation is still ongoing. However, my comment about January 2018 was related to slightly another point (my point was censored several times, probably because of censors' political views) - that a year has passed, so it can be written, that currently there is no strong proof yet. Writing "there are no proofs" in January 2017 would be obviously considered inappropriate.
 * 1) ... however the section 'D.N.C. Cyber attack forensic analysis' says that several cybersecurity experts and firm stated that attack was made by russian hacking intelligence groups. So as you can see, it is written not as opinion, but as a fact. My (censored) point was that those reports find similarities between DNC hacks and some russian hacking groups, and there are guesses that these groups are related with russian intelligence services. In short, the evidence is weaker that it is presented in the article.
 * 2) I did not say that January 2018 is some magic number, it is explained above. --109.167.137.218 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "conclusive proof" of anything in real life. There's only the preponderance of evidence. Use of that phrase here is nothing but pro-fringe rhetoric. I cringe at the thought of introducing such a weaselly and subjective remark into the article, even if sourcing were available. The larger argument that we should introduce fake news into the article to counterbalance the reality-based sources is dead on arrival and doesn't merit discussion. This WP:SOAPBOX should be closed. Geogene (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of definition of 'neutrality' and 'proof' and should be subject of judgment. You are too broadly define remark as 'subjective' to make pretend it to be under WP:SOAPBOX. One of the rules is closely following cited sourced. I have read several sources and they are not so confident as it is presented in the article.
 * Regarding your point that it should not be somehow pointed in the beginning that none of the investigations produced conclusive evidence that hacks was ordered by Putin. Please answer simple question: what presented in the article conforms that attacks were ordered by Putin. --109.167.137.218 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I reviewed your edits and concluded that your are biased on subject of this article. --109.167.137.218 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given repeated attempts to explain to the IP that they should not be accusing people of boas or censorship yes I have to agree now. Added to which I am having difficulty trying to fathom some of what he is saying. I cannot see this doing anything but going round in circles. Also they have now resorted to direct PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia become a lynch mob ?
The echo chambery here is shameful. Is this a cycle of knowing or a bunch of people trying to portray Mr. Trump in a bad way. Feels shady, feels wrong. 82.181.119.173 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In what ways do you feel we have become a "lynch mob"? We aim to report the facts neutrally. If you can find specific examples of where we have failed to do so, we can address them. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a smear piece with unresolved contradictions. The article should use references that offer other points of view or analysis. One would be John McAfee's comments, whatever your opinion of him, he is a subject matter expert on cybersecurity. (See above section on McAfee)

Here are issues that should be addressed:


 * It may be possible that both an inside leak download and a hack occurred and that one or both got copies of the data.
 * We don't know how much additional data was gotten.
 * There is no conclusive proof that state government actors conducted the hack. Evidence is that they used an old generation of hack-ware tools and methods, which may have been state developed.  What we don't know is what other hacks occurred at that time around the globe using the particular version of hack-ware.
 * If the Russians really did favor Trump, then no action was necessary on the Trump campaign's part, nor would they want the Trump campaign or anyone else to know.
 * If non state actors (mercenaries), some perhaps former state actors, conducted the hack they would likely offered it for sale. The sale would have been in Bitcoin or other completely untraceable cryptocurrency.
 * Anyone who knew who held the files could have redeemed them, not necessarily someone on the Trump team. Subpoenaing bank records is of course useless.

Surely there is commentary on this subject suitable for reference.

Bottom line- it will never be proven that anyone on Trump's campaign was connected to the hack or to obtaining the file, most probably because they were innocent, but if not, the hackers would not have made their identity known or payments to them traceable.Phmoreno (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * For the last freakin' time - reliable sources or quit it with the WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

High bias level
This article has a high bias level, starting with not mentioning that Clapper backpedaled strongly from his "17 agencies" claim.

It nowhere cites that the amount spent on things like Facebook ads was tiny, that Russian-ran Facebook groups and pages targeted both Trump and Clinton and more.

It also nowhere sites places like Consortium News, which has tested download speeds and shown that Russians couldn't have done an online international hack of the DNC emails, leaving the logical conclusion that they were internally stolen. Consortium News was found by former AP investigative journalist Robert Parry and is advised on issues like this by VIPS, a group of retired intelligence community professionals. Its source value level is quite high.

47.182.36.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A source for the claim Clapper said 17 agencies and then backpedaled please? Also, a download speed proves the Russians could not have done it, seriously someone has claimed that, we need a source for this too.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The download speeds is referring to the discredited VIPS report covered by The Nation, which has been discussed exhaustively on various talk pages. Consortium News itself is not a reliable source. Ready for archive.Geogene (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC to add the category ‘Foreign electoral intervention’ to the bottom navbox
Should the bottom navbox* include the category ‘Foreign electoral intervention’?

(* ‘bottom navbox’ refers to the box shown at bottom of page on desktop EN that currently includes “Categories: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections | Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 | Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016”)

Humanengr (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * No Fussy vague and pointless. No value for our readers. SPECIFICO  talk  14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See Foreign electoral intervention. Does that help? Humanengr (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I understand this proposal. You seem to be asking if a link to Category:Foreign electoral intervention should be added to the template:United States presidential election, 2016. Is that actually your intention?- MrX 12:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * It’s the box below that; clarification added. Humanengr (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so you just want to categorize the article under Category:Foreign electoral intervention ? Is that actually controversial? I wouldn't oppose it if you just WP:BOLDLY added it.- MrX 15:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * comment Once again I find myself asking? Why is this a problem? The initial opposition to it has vanished, thanks to the thoughtful consideration of Geogene. I don't see any need for an RfC, just add the cat. Opposing !votes with rationales like "Fussy vague and pointless. No value for our readers." are 100% bullshit and should carry no weight in discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. The category is stupid, because "foreign" is a relative term, so it would be better worded "external" or something, but there's no need for an RfC. Nobody cares about this and as I said above, it's pointless and uninformative. Pointless RfC's are a huge time sump. Nobody's going to object if OP just adds this cat to the bag.   SPECIFICO  talk  15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx, folks; closing b/c of consensus. Humanengr (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

McCabe???
How does this page not mention Andrew McCabe's vital role in the Russia investigation? --FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is still "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit". If you have quality sources discussing McCabe's role in the Russian interference or the investigation thereof, you can boldly add some material to the article. — JFG talk 00:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Propose adding Congressional subpoena to FBI, Inspector General's investigation of improper conduct in DOJ, FBI
Propose adding the following facts:

From testimony I watched on live television over the last month, the collusion was between Justice Dept./FBI officials and Clinton/DNC contractor Fusion GPS against Trump. If congress doesn't get the answers from the FBI in response to the months old subpoena, they will proceed with contempt of congress charges. (Christopher Wray said he knew the answers but refused to give them to congress.) Also, Inspector General's investigation of the Justice Dept. and FBI that hasn't been mentioned here.Phmoreno (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with Russian Interference in the 2016 elections? - MrX 03:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Belongs in Developments sectionPhmoreno (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask where it belongs; I asked what it has to do with Russian Interference in the 2016 elections?- MrX 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * .Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Phmoreno, you should read that source . The GOP has been leading you astray, and their propaganda wing, FoxNews, has been repeating their lies, conspiracy theories, and distractions from the real Trump-Russia conspiracy to steal the election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

John McAfee's assessment of DNC hack
Points in John McAfee's analysis deserve mention

Russia DID NOT Hack The DNC - John McAfee Lays It Out Phmoreno (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Undue weight. Very few people doubt that Russia was behind the hack, it's not surprising that McAfee would be one of them. RT of course, being a propaganda network, probably has interviewed every one of the denialists by now. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a huge difference between undue weight and expression of doubt. What matters is if the points McAfee makes are valid or not.  And did the DNC ever allow the FBI access to the server?  If hey still haven't what is their reason?  And where is the mention that this could have been an inside job?Phmoreno (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:FRINGE. Neutralitytalk 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTFORUM. Geogene (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * McAfee is a very fringe figure and his eccentric views don't belong in this article. Neutralitytalk 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * McAfee's character is not the issue, but rather the points he made.Phmoreno (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutrality means the article should not be one sided. There is a difference between "a high degree of confidence" and certainty. The other possibilities need to be addressed.Phmoreno (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Self-published fringe POV. It has nothing to do with who said it or why. SPECIFICO  talk  00:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Secondary reference added. How many secondary and tertiary references do you need?Phmoreno (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs additional content
The article should include content with appropriate references that offer other points of view or analysis. One would be John McAffe's comments, whatever your opinion of him, he is a subject matter expert on cybersecurity. (See above section on McAfee)

Here are issues that should be addressed:


 * It may be possible that both an inside leak download and a hack occurred and that one or both got copies of the data.
 * We don't know how much additional data was gotten.
 * There is no conclusive proof that state government actors conducted the hack. Evidence is that they used an old generation of hack-ware tools and methods, which may have been state developed.  What we don't know is what other hacks occurred at that time around the globe using the particular version of hack-ware. (records exist)
 * If the Russian state really did favor Trump and conducted the hack, then no action was necessary on the Trump campaign's part, nor would they want the Trump campaign or anyone else to know.
 * If non state actors (mercenaries), some perhaps former state actors, conducted the hack they would likely have offered the files for sale. The sale would have been in Bitcoin or other completely untraceable cryptocurrency.
 * Anyone who knew who held the files could have redeemed them, not necessarily someone on the Trump team. Subpoenaing bank records is of course useless.

Surely there is commentary on this subject suitable for reference.

Bottom line- it will never be proven that anyone on Trump's campaign was connected to the hack or to obtaining the file, most probably because they were innocent, but if not, the hackers would not have made their identity known or payments to them traceable. Phmoreno (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources or stop using the talk page as a FORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop immediately archiving discussions
I am interested in seeing what others are saying and do not want these discussions immediately archived.Phmoreno (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that these aren't "discussions" but you just posting your own original research in violation of WP:TALK, archiving is the nice way of doing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not referring to my posts but a couple of other editors expressed their opinions, which were immediately removed. I didn't even get a chance to read all of the comments, but there were some valid points.  You are engaging in censorship.Phmoreno (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be because they were not anything more then "Wikipedia is biased because it represented a viewpoint I do not agree with". It is not censorship, it is asking people to not make accusations of political bias or try to foist their POV on a page. We go with what RS say, not editors speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ph, why don't you take this to your talk page and then if you come up with any proposed content that's within site policy you can bring the muffins back to the barn.  SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Phmoreno, for days now you have filled up this talk page with speculation and argumentation and Original Research. The closed discussion above is a perfect example: nothing but "might have", "could have", "if", "maybe". One or two such posts could be forgiven, but your persistence is getting disruptive. Hatting or immediately archiving this kind of stuff has become necessary to keep this talk page focused on what it is supposed to be focused on: improvements to the article based on Reliable Sources. Be glad that people are resolving this disruption of yours by simply moving it out of the way.(see Note) And if you want to read people's responses, you still can. Anything which has been archived can be found under the archive link at the top of this talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Judging from the warnings on your talk page, this tolerance may not last much longer. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The tolerance is gone.- MrX 23:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump aide Papadopolous knew Russia had a tranche of stolen Clinton emails two months before they were leaked.
Seems important and should be included. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)


 * Fake news already debunked. Phmoreno (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Zero Hedge is not a reliable source. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Fox News also covered this.Phmoreno (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just the fact you're trying to use a fake news website (zero hedge) AND calling a report from NY Times sorta disqualifies your statements, WP:COMPETENCE.Volunteer Marek 01:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And by the way that's not a "debunking", that's just "some guy on twitter said" garbage.Volunteer Marek 02:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, you have made 10,970 edits since you registered your account on March 3, 2007. You are no newbie, and yet you have not benefited from being here. One of the most important skills possessed by editors is how to vet sources, and knowing the difference between reliable and unreliable ones. That you, in your private life, entertain any unreliable sources like Fox News, Zero Hedge (and likely Breitbart, Daily Caller, Townhall, etc.), is unfortunate, because GIGO, and we pay the price.

Your personal choices are affecting your editing here. You should never suggest we even consider the use of such unreliable sources. You seriously lack competence and should stick to fixing grammar, spelling, and style issues. Stay away from anything related to determination of facts, except on engineering subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah... you know Fox news is actually a reliable source right? Though I do not see a Fox source listed. Also tone down the personal attacks. PackMecEng (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe two years ago. Not anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually every time they are brought up at RSN it is confirmed they are a RS. A bias source, but still a RS. Kind of like Mother Jones or Vox. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course following the revelation of Hillary's private email server every internet sleuth on the planet was looking for her emails and very likely there were lots of shadowy figures on the web claiming to have them. Because the FBI had the bar room tip months ago, if Papadopoulos actually knew how to get those or any other campaign related emails the FBI would have gotten it out of him and this case would be over. Fast forward. Now that the FIB is under investigation by congress for political bias based on Inspector General Horowitz's revelations, NY Times publishes the story about Papadopoulos. Coincidentally, this week when Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein have to answer questions about the dossier or be held in contempt of congress NY Times publishes the article. (For how diversion and disinformation works read the Wikileaks emails about providing cover when bad news breaks.) If Papadopoulos' bar room conversation really did start the investigation then why didn't Wray and Rosenstein answer the questions a long time ago? We should know the truth soon.Phmoreno (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This seems to be rapidly headed into NOTFORUM territory.  General Ization Talk  22:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Enough said.Phmoreno (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Fox News piece cited is clearly labeled as opinion, and so is not a reliable source for assertions of fact. The Federalist isn't reliable either. This tends to reinforce what BullRangifer said above. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces and "not reliable sources" presented here are to encourage analytical thinking, but I guess that was expecting too much.Phmoreno (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You made exactly the same claim at Talk:Donald Trump-Russia dossier - that you can post various stuff here that would never be allowed into the article, for the sake of "analytical thinking". So I'll make the same reply I did there: The Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Since this kind of "information" cannot be included in the article because it lacks Reliable Sourcing, mentioning it here can only serve two possible purposes: WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:FORUM. Neither is a permissible use of the Talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What SYNTH is notPhmoreno (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But repeatedly using it to support your speculations is disruptive. Stop doing it. Now. --Neil N  talk to me 03:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Electoral interference
Concerning all the talk around Trump Tower meeting with the Russian lawyer and officials. The article states that US intelligence concluded that Russia electorally interfered ie attempting to influence the elections.

But it is known about Trump Jr that he received an email from Rob Goldstone, who set up the meeting, about it being a part of Russian government wanting to help Trump in elections.

Wouldn't this in itself be seen as interference and trying to influence the elections? Of course this is a statement by someone else, not direct admission, even if he might have organised the meeting. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Bannon's comments

 * " Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”"
 * "(Bannon) warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”"
 * Regarding the Trump Tower meeting: "“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”"
 * "“You realise where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”"
 * "“The chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero”"

That's from. There's more in there but it's not directly related to this topic. Also. Since this is all relevant to Russian interference, this needs to be included (along with WH's response).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should also include Bannon's comments about Hillary on her BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bannon didn't work for Hillary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Does he claim inside info, or is this just his opinion? Parts certainly sound like speculation. O3000 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who, Bannon or Wolff? Note also that the WH is taking the statements at face value and Bannon hasn't bothered to deny it (which he always does when he's accused of something).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Give it a few days to see if any of it sticks. Nothing needs to be included just yet. PackMecEng (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "any of it sticks". This isn't a "developing event". It's a report on What Bannon had already said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mean by if any of it sticks, is that it is a developing event. Since it is a comment from a unreleased book. Not much time for annalists or context yet. So until there is more information and if it develops legs then we can take a look. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Bannon's an expert on treason, or that his use of the term "treason" is anything more than political rhetoric. You can't commit treason unless you are aiding an entity with which the U.S. is at war, which is why no Americans were prosecuted for doing business with Nazi Germany prior to 1941. Last I checked, the U.S. is not at war with Russia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have to be. And it doesn't have to be. It is still significant that he would use that word (obviously in a colloquial sense, the way people normally use it, not in a lawyer-ly way) to describe the meeting and Don Jr.'s actions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Noop. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/treason  SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that much, if any, space should be given to Bannon's spurious opinions in this article. If he was legitimately concerned about treason, he could have said something much earlier. As usual, the media is sensationalizing this nothingburger.- MrX 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the White House's response, I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's about time that the white house caught up with the rest of the world. This is little more than diversion from a long list of greater issues, like a tax law that favors corporations, money laundering, congressional committee members trying to subvert a criminal investigation, tiny fingers on a large button, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The American public is being played.- MrX 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The comments might deserve to be mentioned in the Trump campaign–Russian meetings article as a "Reaction". FallingGravity 21:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If Bannon knew it was treasonous for Trump Jr. to fail to report this to the FBI, then wouldn’t he be treasonous for not reporting treason while working in the WH? This is just Bannon being Bannon. We can’t fall into the trap of repeating such. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Put it in the Bannon article. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

None of this overhyped, over-the-top bluster should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Bannon's comments aren't relevant to this page, as they're his mere opinion. They belong at Fire and Fury (book), and maybe not even on his own biographical page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian which says it saw the book quoting him, says the statement about Trump Jr's meeting with Russian officials is quoted from him. . Even Trump is taking legal action against him. It is likely genuine but the book hasn't been released yet. But the fact pointed out by the sources here is that potentially damaging material against Hillary was offered to Trump campaign in a June 2016 meeting. This is what is reffered to as "unpatriotic" and "treasonous". We should hold off on Bannon's statements until the release of the book. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * From the viewpoint of someone in the campaign team, it will be considered important. Had it been someone not in Trump's campaign, I doubt it will be. Since we have a commentary and reactions section, I think it should be added. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are articles where this comment of Bannon's might be added. However, I don't think this article - which is about Russian interference in the election - is the place. Probably Fire and Fury (book) since it is being cited in virtually every article or comment about the book. Possibly the Bannon article. Possibly the Trump campaign-Russian meetings article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The meeting was real, so was the offer. I don't see any harm in a few comments. What's the point in having commentary and reactions if you don't include comments and reactions? As far as notabilty is concerned, it certainly is notable, even to the point of legal action. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be added. for its shows the whole right-wing propaganda of Russian collusion or Trump campaign collusion being a "lie" itself is a lie. It's known Trump Jr tried to access sensitive information from Russia to undermine Hillary. This is "collusion". Why is this story not on the top instead of conclusion of intelligence agencies? Trump Jr's confession and expose of Russia-Trump campaign collusion must be at the top. Even if he didn't receive anything "substantial", he tried to conspire with an enemy government. 103.40.197.145 (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the reason why the Trump Tower meeting is not "at the top" is because this is an article about the interference rather than an article about the collusion per se.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So far I've read WP:OR here about "what Bannon always does" and "how the White House reacts" but is unsourced, and a lot of stuff about "right-wing propaganda", similarly unsourced. Bannon's commentary needs to be treated as WP:BIASED, especially because it's an ongoing dispute between Bannon and his former boss.  We're not a newspaper and not on a deadline, nor are we Bannon's publicists.  Bannon's already issued retractions about some of his statements regarding Trump Junior, so it's in the interest of the project to allow more time for the story to settle out.  If we have comments regarding treason from someone who wasn't just fired by Trump, in WP:RS, THAT we could use - assuming it is WP:BLP-compliant.  The Bannon stuff belongs in other articles, as stated above. loupgarous (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bannon is hardly mentioned in this article. What are you talking about?
 * (and I still think that Bannon's comments belong here, especially given the widespread coverage in the past few days).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

High bias level
This article has a high bias level, starting with not mentioning that Clapper backpedaled strongly from his "17 agencies" claim.

It nowhere cites that the amount spent on things like Facebook ads was tiny, that Russian-ran Facebook groups and pages targeted both Trump and Clinton and more.

It also nowhere sites places like Consortium News, which has tested download speeds and shown that Russians couldn't have done an online international hack of the DNC emails, leaving the logical conclusion that they were internally stolen. Consortium News was found by former AP investigative journalist Robert Parry and is advised on issues like this by VIPS, a group of retired intelligence community professionals. Its source value level is quite high.

47.182.36.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A source for the claim Clapper said 17 agencies and then backpedaled please? Also, a download speed proves the Russians could not have done it, seriously someone has claimed that, we need a source for this too.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The download speeds is referring to the discredited VIPS report covered by The Nation, which has been discussed exhaustively on various talk pages. Consortium News itself is not a reliable source. Ready for archive.Geogene (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Facebook ads are being discussed above. How is Clapper's claim relevant (even if it's true that Clapper "backpedaled")? We don't seem to mention "17 intelligence agencies" in the article. I don't whether The Nation article has been discredited – what happened to the internal review? However, if VIPS report is not covered in DNC leak subarticle, that's an indicator that it should not be covered here. Politrukki (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note - Per my comments below, I am restoring this section after it was removed by SPECIFICO and Geogene (with an objection by A Quest for Knowledge). I will defer to your judgement if you disagree but I don't believe it's appropriate to simply remove this post, since it does make a few specific points, even if it is unlikely anything will come of it. -Darouet (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we're hatting now. So are we going to hat this or are we going to bicker about it for another three months? I would hat it myself, but last time I hatted something, that hatting was quickly reverted by an admin. Then it went off to Jimbo Talk to fester for days. I forget how that turned out. Geogene (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that you not hat or archive this post. I am not demanding the IPs specific requests be implemented, but I believe that some of their concerns are valid. Simply removing talk page posts that one is unhappy about is inappropriate. -Darouet (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If the OP doesn't respond within a reasonable about of time (~a day) I would support simply archiving the section. No sense wasting precious talk page space if the OP won't even answer clarifying questions or substantiate their assertions.- MrX 17:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A two or three day wait could be better. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah. Nobody's internet connection is that slow.- MrX 17:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that some of their concerns are valid. Simply removing talk page posts that one is unhappy about is inappropriate. First off, after all the clear delineation by half a dozen editors as to the nature of the disruption/trolling, it is not civil to suggest that the consensus of your fellow editors is to remove posts based on a shared personal preference. Now, if you want to change the current consensus to hat this disruption (whether immediately or in a day or two) then the only effective course would be for you to make a constructive editing suggestion instead of to instigate another pointless meta-discussion about disruption. We're all ears eyeballs.  SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I asked for evidence that the IP was a troll / SPA / meatpuppet, and didn't receive any. Do you think that my comment above is uncivil, but that MelanieN's comment below, addressing you, is civil? We DON’T delete other people’s comments because we disagree with them, or because the same points have been made before, or because they are not supported by Reliable Sources, or because they are Opinion or Original Research. User:Politrukki, I’m talking to you. IMO those are not valid reasons for instant-archiving, either - especially if a discussion is ongoing with more than one person participating. User:SPECIFICO, User:Geogene, I’m talking to you. (We did make a bit of an exception recently, instant-archiving a whole series of repetitive posts from Phmoreno that were getting disruptive.) I'm making the same point exactly. I would appreciate if you would WP:AGF for my comments here: at least some small amount of that is required to maintain a collegial environment on this talk page. -Darouet (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Darouet, the IPs/SPAs should at least read the archive before they pointlessly revisit things that have been argued for months. Surely you will admit that? You, and others, but especially you, are casting WP:ASPERSIONS when you say that this old garbage gets deleted because I disagree with them (and yes I am being named above). I don't appreciate that, but I'll just return the favor by saying it's not unlikely that you are taking a "free speech" position to the talk page because that transparently benefits what appears to be your own, not exactly mainstream, POV. Geogene (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity and for my understanding, by ‘mainstream’, were you indicating ‘Mainstream media’? Humanengr (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Darouet, Do you think that my comment above is uncivil, but that MelanieN's comment below, addressing you, is civil?. Yessir, ma'am. If you want more detail, I'd be pleased to reply elsewhere. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If nobody is looking for a dramafest it's time to move on. -Darouet (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you want to move on. Weird, because you've been throwing my username around a lot over the last several hours, and I've mostly been ignoring it. Darouet, why don't you think new users should be expected to search the talk page archives? And, are you sure you don't have an agenda here of your own? Geogene (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't expect an IP, unless they're a prolific IP, or a new user to understand the talk page archives. -Darouet (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that the rest of us will waste an unlimited number of volunteer hours endlessly rehashing the same issues that we already know will not improve the article? And that good faith IPs will also waste many hours discussing something with the false hope that it might ever be added to the article? Not only does that strike me as profoundly inefficient, it also strikes me as fundamentally unfair to everyone involved, particularly established users but also whatever IP/SPAs are here with the right motivation. Except the trolls that come to talk pages to prove a point, of course. That will give them what they want. I'm still trying to understand what the benefit of not immediately closing known dead ends is, other than for the trolls. Geogene (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most talk page entries on most articles are inactive, and on big articles, they're eventually archived. Here, 90% of editor bytes (and time) have come from the effort to (inappropriately) remove this talk page entry. Removing it without just cause sets a bad precedent. I do understand your frustration (I mean this sincerely), but just let it go, for all of our sakes. -Darouet (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't you get the memo, Darouet? Drop it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Deal with VIPS in the article so this doesn't come up repeatedly
Regarding the recent reverted VIPS post.

I made s similar post about the VIPS report recently because I was new to this article and hadn't seen it mentioned. Rather than dismissing the VIPS report, it should be addressed in the article, and if it has been debunked then say why. That will deal with two of the three likely scenarios: Russian Intelligence (SVR), inside job, mercenary hacker(s).Phmoreno (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Every conspiracy theory doesn't merit debunking in article space. That's Whataboutism. And just because various IPs show up on talk pages doesn't mean that every argument we've ever had previously needs to be re-opened. Geogene (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "VIPS Report" is fake news garbage and doesn't belong on either the article or the talk page on Wikipedia. You can look up the extensive discussions of it, but don't put this stuff back on the article talk page. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * VIPS has come up here at this talk page a number of times as far as I can tell:
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * and in a related post at RSN:
 * 


 * Binney has come up numerous times at this talk page:, , , , , , , , ,.


 * There was a time when VIPS/Binney was included in this article; I'm not sure when those references were removed. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. the archive-revert-delete sequence has removed the IP's statement both from the talk page here, and from the archive. I don't think things should be archived so quickly, but deleting good faith comments from talk+archive both is even worse. Pinged editors and  I don't know if there's a way of fixing the delete? -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing up with a little jab here. I don't see what you're talking about. Get your facts documented, then return with info so it can be addressed. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by 'jab?" In this edit sequence, you 1-click archived a new talk page discussion, AQFK reverted you, and Geogene deleted the discussion. As a result the discussion is no longer here at talk, nor is it archived. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It means, if you see an obviously inadvertent editing artifact, just fix it. Don't pop in to complain and recite long lists of whatnot when we're trying to keep the article talk page on focus in the presence of an obstinate SPA. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The "long lists of whatnot [sic]" is a list of discussions that you and Geogene are supposedly referencing. Because you didn't link them, quote from them, or note specific outcomes, I've listed them above. Don't be so pointlessly rude.


 * I'll restore the discussion section that you and Geogene deleted. If someone wants to re-archive it, they may do that. -Darouet (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

About deleting or archiving other people's posts
OK, hold it. Let’s agree on some rules here. For starters, we do NOT delete other people’s comments at a talk page unless they are 1) information/commentary about a living subject which violates BLP (and that doesn’t just mean saying something unkind or critical; it means actual accusations, vicious namecalling, that kind of thing) or 2) blatant personal attacks or 3) copyright infringement. Other cases can include things like obvious nonsense, fly-by commentary about the subject, or posts by proven sockpuppets.

We DON’T delete other people’s comments because we disagree with them, or because the same points have been made before, or because they are not supported by Reliable Sources, or because they are Opinion or Original Research. User:Politrukki, I’m talking to you. IMO those are not valid reasons for instant-archiving, either - especially if a discussion is ongoing with more than one person participating. User:SPECIFICO, User:Geogene, I’m talking to you. (We did make a bit of an exception recently, instant-archiving a whole series of repetitive posts from Phmoreno that were getting disruptive.)

So what should we do with comments or discussions that are veering way off into Original Research, or opinion (per WP:FORUM), or mild personal attacks, or going over and over material that has been discussed before? The best thing to do is hat them, with an appropriate comment as to why. If there is active discussion we should wait until it dies down before hatting or archiving.

Discussing what to include in the article is what talk pages are for. That doesn’t mean hammering on the same points over and over or refusing to accept consensus, which in individual cases can become disruptive, but please let that kind of label be applied by someone who is not involved in the disagreement; avoid name-calling and accusing as part of an argument.

Please don’t respond to this comment of mine with a whole bunch of arguments about or excuses for past behavior. Let’s just agree to follow these guidelines in the future. OK? --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Are these written or unwritten policies? Geogene (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't wikilawyer, please. They are advice, offered because of recent problems at this article. Do you think you can abide by these guidelines? --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Advice, that's different. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really appreciate this. We need less ownership on this talk page and in the article. Instant-archiving discussions just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is disruptive. Opening simultaneous discussions for same topic is considered disruptive and it's okay to close a redundant discussion while pointing editors to existing discussion. This talk page rarely reaches any consensus (and sometimes when someone says there was consensus for X, that's not true at all) and we currently have seventeen archived talk pages so it's natural that some conversations are rehashed from time to time. And everybody please remember that consensus can change.
 * However, I'm flabbergasted that you chose to restore one purely disruptive talk page post which had nothing to do with article improvement, and which literally said that a living person, who has not been convicted, committed a crime. You reinstated an obvious BLP violation only to hat that post. That's mighty bureaucratic. Yet you chose not to restore a discussion (now restored by Darouet), which was about article improvement? Politrukki (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, maybe this tweak will mollify your concerns. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From the BLP point of view that's better, but your comment is still soapboxing and inappropriate to this talk page. In the long run it doesn't matter how much you add hedging language if the comment is inappropriate in the context. You did not bring up any sources that support/contradict Himes, directly or indirectly. It's still not too late delete your post and come up with better thought arguments that would help us to decide whether Himes's comments should be included or omitted. Politrukki (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which one, the one where he says he has not seen much more evidence for Trumps criminal involvement then the US public, but then he has also might not have seen all the evidence?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that we have 17 talk page archives proves that this talk page is a huge time sink that is not being handled appropriately. Letting it be a perpetual open mic night by allowing any and all single-use IPs to publish screeds here--whether those screeds are on a white background, a grey background, or collapsed but still easily located--is not going to improve this. Whereas, deleting/archiving creates a disincentive. It doesn't affect the article because if Breitbart isn't a reliable source today, it's not going to become a reliable source because a bunch of right-wing SPAs spent 18 months talking everyone into a stupor here. Although that might actually get it into the article, once everybody's fed up with dealing with them and there is no way to put a brake on the discussion. There is no logical basis for not deleting or archiving repetitive, time-wasting posts. It's just overhead that nobody should have to put up with. Geogene (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to agree with Mel, until this. There is an issue here with (what are in effect) meatpuppets coming here and starting up the same damn conversation we have had 15 times before. But at the same time it is against the rules to delete another users posts without good reason.


 * I suggest therefore that this is taken to a more appropriate noticeboard as this affects not just this page but many, and may need a rules change.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Serious registered users get a lot of slack here. I don't see any problem hatting or archiving obvious SPA or sock disruption. I did not think it constructive for Darouet to parachute in when he appeared to deny that key distinction. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 10:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN, Geogene, and SPECIFICO. Rambling forum talk by editors posting in good faith should preferably be hatted if the comments are not leading to specific article improvements. Unambiguous trolling, gibberish, and rants should simply be deleted per WP:TPG and WP:DENY. This includes deleting the more subtle trolling from users who have been repeatedly warned not to use the talk page for idle speculation.- MrX 13:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the IP's post was short, and did raise a number of specific concerns, some of which I and plenty of editors here have agreed with. I didn't find their post disruptive, and unless there's evidence they are a sock or a "meatpuppet," as Slatersteven suggests, their post shouldn't simply be removed. -Darouet (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I agree that there are posts that can be deleted per WP:TPG and WP:DENY, and have supported that on other pages to protect them from known trolls or socks. But deleting reasonable comments that you disagree with is a step too far. -Darouet (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My comments were general. IPs are people too. I also agree with Slatersteven, whose comment I did not previously see.. - MrX 14:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * None of what Darouet said "sounds reasonable" however. Darouet has not been working on the "issues" (if any) that the SPA's keep bringing up here. Then he accuses others of bad faith archiving and hatting, calling the trolls' comments "reasonable" after allowing as how, well, he agrees with them despite never trying to get them into well-sourced condition that would support article content. And now -- now we have another stupid drawn out sump of a thread on this already messed-up creature we call a talk page. Nothing reasonable to see here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonable to ask that comments or sections — made by anyone who isn't known to be a troll or SPA — be preserved. The IP made a few specific critiques that relate to article content, which certainly can be acted upon to improve the article, even if that's unlikely to happen. What evidence do you have that the IP is a troll or an SPA? -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. are you sure I accused you of "bad faith archiving and hatting?" And is it really so hard to use the personal pronoun "they" or "he/she," as I've requested of you several times in the past? -Darouet (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, folks, I didn’t make this stuff up. Please see Talk page guidelines. You can delete “prohibited material such as comments by banned users, libel, legal threats, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies.” You can delete “harmful posts including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism”. You can delete “gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), and test edits.” It does NOT say you can delete off-topic posts; it says you should deal with off-topic posts by hatting them. Likewise, the mere fact that a comment comes from an IP does not mean it should be deleted, particularly not if other users have responded and a discussion has developed.

And yes, Politrukki, it is OK to hat redundant discussions while directing people to the primary discussion. Slatersteven, feel free to raise this discussion at a more general location, but they will most likely just point you to the guidelines I linked above. SPECIFICO, your repeated personal criticism of Darouet is inappropriate. Such talk only leads to counter-accusations and degrades the tone of the page. Please discuss issues and not the behavior of other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've contributed as much substantive improvement to this article as anyone in the Project. I don't have a problem calling out sockpuppetry, trolling, and vandalism. Nobody deleted nothing for its being IP or being "wrong" or being disagreeable. Are we talking about whether, after a thread has been appropriately hatted, per your advice, it was then a violation to archive it?  Seems a minimal distinction to me.  Melanie, I note that nobody challenges your advice, but I think it's fair to say that the opinions of less active, less experienced, less productive editors than yourself is counterproductive here.  Your participation has been key to whatever orderly progress we've made on this article, but I think we'd all be better off without carping or paratrooper appearances without any avenue to article improvement. I took some care not to make any personal reference to Darouet, but to address he/she's substantive points.  To the extent I failed, you are quite right it doesn't belong here and I am pleased to apologize. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I Think I said that id users think this is an issue it is not for this talk page. I think I also said that in this instance I had no major issue with deleting or hatting these posts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

chronological order: by when something was reported, or by when it happened?
I was starting out to trim the Michael Flynn section but I immediately ran across a question. I've encountered the same issue at other articles so let me get some opinions. Right now the various items in the Flynn section are listed in order by when they were reported. (March 2017, May 2017, etc.) It seems to me it would make more sense to list them in order by when they happened. (December 2015, December 2016, "months before" December 2016, etc.) It's been in the "when reported" format for a long time so I don't want to change it unless there is consensus to do so. What do you all think? --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would go with the latter, this is an encyclopedia not chronological wall chart.Slatersteven (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's only like that because current event articles tend to form as accretions. Geogene (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The latter is best, although the reader should also know when things became public. Neutralitytalk 02:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely by occurrence, IOW chronological. The time of the discovery or report should be evident from the source, or if necessary, from the text. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When it happened is the most clear way of setting up the page to read from my view. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. That's what I think too. I'll work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I trimmed the Flynn section and rearranged it to chronological order. I also rearranged and trimmed the Peter Smith material and moved it from a subsection into the general "other associates" section. I also expanded the Papadopoulos material and moved it into a subsection of its own, due to his importance as the trigger for the FBI investigation and the first guilty plea. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed article restructuring
The article has gone beyond its title by including the investigation of Trump and associates. That is a separate topic, already hatnoted. There is no hard evidence of that Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with Russia. Trump campaign links to Russia are also covered by a hatnote. The focus of this article should be on the key points of the cited intelligence reports. The intelligence reports cover most of these points, but there is room for improvement. Possible motives mentioned in the reports need elaboration and should be put into a more coherent narrative. The extraneous content dilutes the important points of the intelligence reports. Background on Russian intelligence should reference how they operate would help the reader. For example, a hat note to Yuri Bezmenov. "The main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. Only about 15% of time, money and manpower is spent on espionage and such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures,…or psychological warfare.  Yuri Bezmenov" I came here looking for technical information about how the hacks were linked to Russia and was disappointed in the explanation and distracted by a whole bunch of sideline issues. It is vitally important to have this as a solid background for articles related to the Mueller and congressional investigations, and it should be written so that it is not repeatedly accused of being slanted. The whole affair has helped Russia in its strategy of creating internal division, now aided by articles like this one. I urge you to pay attention to Yuri Bezmenov.Phmoreno (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And a fair chunk of this is soapboxing, it does not matter (and we do not care) why you came here, discus changes to the article only.
 * As to the rest. It is irrelevant how the KGB operates (assuming any of the claims are even real). What is (and is only) relevant would be if RS said they were not even capable of these operations (and the hacks are not the only interference).
 * There may be room for expansion of any specific allegations and motives, care to suggest an edit?Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, no Trump is not irrelevant, Trump and his associates actions (and allegations as well as their knowledge of what went on) against them are relevant. And it does not matter what one senator says, he is not the sole authority or arbiter of the truth, nor is he even part of the investigative team.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This time the burden of proof is on you. Cite me a RS that contains hard evidence (paper, email, text, video) that Trump or his associates colluded with Russia.Phmoreno (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As we are not saying there was conclusion I do not have to provide RS supporting a claim we do not make.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Phmoreno, that's not the way it works here. You're still not getting it. We have rules and policies. You don't get to make up your own. You keep trying to right great wrongs and place truth over verifiability. ("Truth" is a very subjective and debatable thing, hence we steer away from it as policy.)
 * You must get used to asking: "What do RS say, regardless of the subject, true, false, or imaginary?" THAT is what we document. If you keep repeating these non policy-based arguments, your failure to show evidence of a positive learning curve will doom you because you show a lack of competence. We don't keep such editors around for long, because they are not here to build the encyclopedia. They create disruption and are time sinks.
 * We couldn't give a flying f@#k if there is or is not collusion (well, personally we do... ), we just document what RS say about it, regardless of whether or not there is any collusion, and regardless of whether or not there is evidence for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Until you can somehow show that Trump or any associates interfered with the election, that should only have a minimal mention here. The coverage in this article should be limited to: If proof emerges that Trump or his associates did interfere with the election, that should be integrated into the article, but the details most likely will be in. These changes will make this article more stable and minimize administrative involvement. There are at least three other articles and timelines on this topic and I don't know that anyone is keeping them all in agreementPhmoreno (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the main point that the OP missed is that this article is about the interference, not the report on the interference. That means that this article must cover a wide swatch of politics and intelligence subjects pertaining to it in order to provide encyclopedic coverage. We can't cover the interference without also covering the links between the Trump campaign and Russia. We can't cover it without covering the various parties involved, or the events surrounding it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What was hacked and what was released
 * How we know the Russian govt. was involved
 * What were their motives
 * What were the effects
 * hatnote with introductory paragraph
 * hatnote with introductory paragraph
 * any other appropriate hatnotes


 * Disagree. An important aspect of the Russian interference is the question of whether they did or did not have assistance from Americans. That is legitimate material for this article. 1) We have not claimed that there was or there wasn't such assistance - "proof" is a matter for law enforcement - but we have included instances that deserve to be examined. They are part of the story. 2) As for how we know it was the Russians, the evidence has mostly not been released because it is classified. (Releasing it would only tell the Russians how to avoid being detected next time.) So we cite a "who says so" type attribution, citing the American intelligence agencies, in the very first sentence of the article, and continuing in other places throughout the article. 3) As for Yuri Bezmenov, his information is good for nothing except OR and SYNTH. His personal knowledge of Russia and the KGB ended 40 years ago when he defected, and he reportedly died 25 years ago. 4) As for "making this article more stable", it has been stable in its current format for more than a year. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether or not the Russians had assistance from Americans should be moved to Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) as background, along with firing of Comey. 2)The ARS Tecnnica and some of the other links in the Forensic analysis section provide details that do not appear in the section text 3)Bezmenov's insight are the key to understanding today's politics. In his explanation of the process of internally conquering a nation he explained that it took several generations. His explanation was brilliantly prophetic. (I don't remember which of his several videos that was in.)Phmoreno (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also fail to see why this would "make this article more stable and minimize administrative involvement". I do however think there may be a valid reason for trimming all the material bout Trumpite links. It does seem to be to be a tad overlong, we do afterall have an article on this, so one paragraph on each case should be enough.Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's true that the Michael Flynn section is too long and should be trimmed. Same with the Peter Smith section. All of the other "contacts" seem to be limited to a paragraph each already. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As said, mention of Bezmenov is OR/SYNTH. We aren’t writing an essay – we’re writing an encyclopedia article using RS. Frankly, I think ARS Technica should be avoided. They’re fine for discussing technology; but their biases show through in political/legal/social subject areas. (At least that’s my biased opinion.) As for trimming, most heavily edited articles could benefit from a trim. O3000 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Bezmanov?? - Why am I not surprised? Bezmanov is a kookmuffin. No more OR, please. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk
 * As for Bezmenov, that was my only source for understanding Russian intelligence strategy. If you have a better one please recommend it.Phmoreno (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am missing something, where do we discus Americans aiding the Russians? Also ARS Tecnnica is not a forensic laboratory (they are an IT magazine) and their evidence is not "forensic" as it is based solely on publicly available informational (also what ARS Tecnnica article, this one ?). Bezmenov is not talking about the interference, it is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The ARS Technica reference I am referring to has been in this article for some time, but I was just using that one as an example because it is a summary. All of those existing references need to be studied in detail to write a better narrative for someone wanting an in depth explanation. Phmoreno (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's remove it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, let's not. It's a secondary source.Phmoreno (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a clear or well-thought-out proposal. Neutralitytalk 02:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to propose a better article that highlights the known facts and minimizes the speculation, in keeping with the article title.Phmoreno (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is clear that there is no consensus in this discussion to "restructure" the article - or if you prefer, "propose a better article." This idea has received no support. I suggest you stop pushing it and move on. --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed there is no evidence of the Trump campaign having colluded with Russia. The Clinton campaign however...? As for CNN, Joy Behar or others prematurely hooping over nothing burgers? I don't know how that should be handled in this article, if at all. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that the non-existence of evidence of collusion has been established as fact. Perhaps you can enlighten us with some sources?- MrX 23:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources have not presented any evidence yet, so we have nothing to put in this article. It is very difficult to objectively prove a negative. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate to be that guy, but I hope you do realize that the fact that something hasn't been reported doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.- MrX 23:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "...the fact that something hasn't been reported doesn't mean that it doesn't exist." Trying to remember, what was it that Rachel Maddow said, when she was told that the dossier didn't have any proven dirt on Trump? something to the words of - 'rumours not needing facts, to be true.' GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, and your points are becoming increasingly divergent, so I'm not sure there is anything to understand. Oh well.- MrX 01:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

MRX: Several additional references exist saying no evidence of collusion. REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): “Only because the collusion case hasn't been made. I mean keep in mind, two of these folks you just showed (Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), they were talking about collusion this time six months ago but there's no evidence of that so now they pivoted to obstruction of justice. It's an interesting legal argument.” Then there's Clapper.  In addition to Clapper saying there’s no evidence of collusion he goes on to say that Russia he goes on to say to (my paraphrasing) that the Russians have succeeded in their goal of creating internal division.  Another source. Phmoreno (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that we have had a busy day of NOTFORUM posts advocating conspiracy theories. Geogene (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain your comment. I don't see how it is applicable.Phmoreno (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me with this? You're actually citing opinions that are 6-9 months old, and a political sound bite from an unusable source? Gimme a break or at least a piece of that Kit Kat bar .- MrX 01:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dec. 5, 2017 was not 6-9 months ago. Just shows that there was evidence at the start of the investigation and there is no evidence today, or we would have already heard about it. I am pointing out that the way this article is written is pushing a conspiracy theory.Phmoreno (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you're wiretapping Mueller's office, that's completely false. The article is not pushing a "conspiracy theory", it's pushing the viewpoints found in the bulk of reliable sourcing. You're trying to get us to ignore sourcing based on some really shoddy logic, and I hope somebody hats this soon before any more time is wasted on it. Geogene (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Gowdy, in that transparently political interview, actually contradicted himself. His claim that there is no evidence (I guess because, per him, the FBI and DOJ haven't turned it over to his committee) is not especially convincing. How about a reliable secondary source that states, in its own voice, that there is no evidence. - MrX 02:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources that show hard evidence of collusion do not exist in this article. Until someone provides one, this article is outside the scope of its title.Phmoreno (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Aren't there a lot of reliable sources discussing the possibility of collusion? Geogene (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Man, we really need one of those "perennial issues" templates on this talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Phmoreno, this continued insistence on a point that literally no one else has agreed with is getting disruptive. You have been warned already that this kind of behavior could lead to sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am giving up on this post but want to correct the record. I did have one supporter User:GoodDay. And I do not think I was the one being disruptive, but rather those who made their usual attacks on sources. (Gowwdy makes the statement at 3:50 and that is a secondary source Real Clear Politics as requested). However, I am abandoning any more commenting here.  If the best solution anyone can come up with is "perennial issues" tag, it's obvious I'm just wasting my time.  Apologies for the inconvenience.Phmoreno (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Russia targeting US senate
Not sure if this is within scope as strictly speaking it's not about the 2016 election but "Russia-linked hackers targeting US Senate".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have just answered this yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's suppose to mean "it's not within scope" (I didn't, that's the "not sure" part), where should it go? Since the interference is ongoing, do we need another article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like it would need a separate section and a lot more reference material. Perhaps waiting a bit to see if more news comes out?  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think another article covering Russia's actions is needed, or renaming this one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to belong to Cyberwarfare in the United States or/and Cyberwarfare by Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, yes the latter.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The source specifically references the 2016 election hack, so this could certainly be footnoted in the article, but not unless there are 2-3 sources to demonstrate noteworthiness.- MrX 22:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)