Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 18

“There's still little evidence that Russia's 2016 social media efforts did much of anything“
Philip Bump at WaPo:

Some quotes:
 * [W]hat we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts.
 * Of the 30 ads shared by the Democrats, six, viewed 1.2 million times in total, ran in 2015. Only seven ran in the last month of the campaign, totaling about 340,000 views. The ads targeted none of the four closest states in the election — New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — specifically; most were national ad buys. States that were targeted specifically included Texas and New York, neither of which was considered a swing state.
 * Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, detailed how unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election. Among the points he made:
 * Maryland was targeted by nearly five times as many ads as was Wisconsin (262 to 55).
 * Thirty-five of the 55 ads targeting Wisconsin ran during the primary.
 * More ads targeted DC than Pennsylvania.
 * A total of $1,979 was spent in Wisconsin — $1,925 of it in the primary.
 * The spending in Michigan and Pennsylvania were $823 and $300, respectively.
 * More of the geographically targeted ads ran in 2015 than in 2016.
 * [Per] Facebook: Ten million people saw ads run by the Russian agents — but 5.6 million of those views were after the election.
 * [T]weets from the Russian accounts … constituted 0.02 percent of the election-related tweets. … If all of the Russian-linked tweets had been dropped on Election Day — closer to the point at which they would have directly helped suppress or boost turnout — they would still only have constituted 0.27 percent of the tweets that day. But they weren’t.
 * Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee told CNN he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.
 * [T]he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.

Humanengr (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And?Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In your view, does any/all of the above qualify as RS? Humanengr (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Err, sorry to wikilaywer but as you have not suggested any edit I can neither confirm or deny that the article is an RS for what you want to write. But I can say you have only included one RS in the above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there more recent RS that counter the above points? Humanengr (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What edit are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A, please format replies correctly so it does not look like I have replied to it already. B. It does not matter if there are any recent RS that counter the claims, they are still only claims. Even your source admits there maybe evidence of which we are not aware yet. Infact these are just counter claims, so the claims are already our there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re B: Which statement are you referring to with “Even your source admits there maybe evidence of which we are not aware yet.”? Humanengr (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps, one might argue, there is classified information about Russia’s meddling that suggests a more dramatic problem.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m ok with including that ‘might’ statement along with its continuation: “Perhaps, one might argue, there is classified information about Russia’s meddling that suggests a more dramatic problem. Perhaps. On Thursday morning, though, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee told CNN he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.” or some shortened paraphrase. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The source claims Himes' said that, other sources  have slightly different wording, and the implication not that he has not seen any evidence, just that we have already been made aware of any crimes Trump may have committed. Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per that cite: “Asked if he’s seen evidence of a crime from the Trump campaign, Himes said Thursday that it’s Mueller’s role to investigate crimes, but added he hasn’t ‘seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of,” citing the two guilty pleas and two indictments Mueller has obtained thus far.’ I’m ok with that fuller statement. Humanengr (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not as they are different.Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you see a substantive difference between the two blockquotea below? AFAICS, the second adds a ref to Mueller, guilty pleas, and indictments. Is that the issue or is it something else? Humanengr (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "WaPo: “… Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee told CNN he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.”"


 * "The Hill: “Asked if he’s seen evidence of a crime from the Trump campaign, Himes said Thursday that it’s Mueller’s role to investigate crimes, but added he hasn’t ‘seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of,’ citing the two guilty pleas and two indictments Mueller has obtained thus far.”"


 * Humanengr (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Subtly yes. One is worded in a way that can be read as saying that he has not seen much evidence, the other says he has not seen much more (or in other words he has seen more), also he says "I am not sure...". Why (indeed) would we not quote his own words? Also it is clear he is only talking about what the HIC has seen, not Muller (and he makes that very clear). So yes I would argue there is a slight alteration of tone that makes it seem more certain then it is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * His own words: Jim Himes interview with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota:
 * Camerota: Have you seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign?


 * Himes: Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. And of course remember, the Congress is not about investigating crimes. The FBI and Robert Mueller are about that, and of course Robert Mueller has secured two guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and from George Papadopoulos, and of course, has indicted two other individuals, and it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet. So of course like a lot of Americans, I am waiting to see whatever else ….
 * How about if we use that, perhaps with some condensation? Would the condensation below address your concerns?
 * On December 28, 2017, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee, when asked whether he had “seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign”, said “Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. … [O]f course, remember, … it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet.”
 * Humanengr (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Humanengr, Himes seems to believe we already have heard of most of the possible crimes, and what "the American people" are "already aware of" is a huge pile of indicators, testimony, suppositions, intelligence, and confirmed and unconfirmed matters. I could write a long list of them, but suspect that obstruction of justice is the one that may get Trump, as it did Nixon. Many RS assert that he has already committed that crime.
 * What one considers a possible Trump/crime largely depends on whether ones POV is informed by RS or by unreliable ones like Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, RT, Sputnik, Infowars, etc. RS have examined myriad potential crimes (we are "aware" of them), while unreliable sources have done all they can to either not report them at all, or to downplay and deny them, as well as use deflection by attacking others.
 * Now Trump's defenders are turning attention away from the alleged criminals in the Trump administration and campaigns, and attacking the FBI, CIA, and whistleblowers like Steele, all of whom are in good faith trying to get to the bottom of what is possibly the greatest and most dangerous political conspiracy America has ever experienced. If Trump is innocent, he should be helping them, not criticizing them. He does not act like an innocent man.
 * Former FBI agent Asha Rangappa has explained it this way (paraphrased): The use of obstruction of justice tactics to attack witnesses and law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent, because whenever someone sees something suspicious that can affect national security, we want them to notify the FBI. That's what Steele did. He, and foreign intelligence allies, were extremely alarmed by what they all found. If witnesses are scared of doing so because the perpetrators are in high places and can misuse the power of the FBI to instead attack them, rather than take them seriously, we're in a bad spot. Terrorists and foreign (cyber)criminals won't get reported.
 * Trump is misusing his power by appointing people beholden to him, not the Constitution, and then using the FBI as his personal tool. That is very wrong. Dictators do that. Some non-Americans may not understand this, but the majority of Americans are very alarmed by this situation, and they do not trust Trump. No president has had such low popularity numbers at this stage in their presidency. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yo, Humane, Per Facebook: Ten million people saw ads run by the Russian agents — but 5.6 million of those views were after the election. So you now concede that Clinton would have won by 7.4 million popular votes if those pre-election eyeballs hadn't seen the Russian facebook Interference?  SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, how can (someone that claims to be) an academic expert on economics fail to understand advertising on such a basic level?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you're one that clicked a Russian cat video or a poison link. 🙀 🏴‍☠️ 🇷🇺  SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use this as a soapbox or as a forum to discus what other users think, discus the article and how to improve it please.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that they were just sharing a useful source, and highlighting some key pieces of information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

[In response to ]: How about if we start the ‘Social media and internet trolls’ section with "As of December 28, 2017, per Philip Bump at the Washington Post, “[T]he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.” [cite] Earlier assertions included:" Humanengr (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What earlier assertions? Also why have this at the start?Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By ’earlier assertions’, I was referring to the remainder of the section; at the start as it is a summary statement. Humanengr (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No it is not it is one opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again: Are there more recent RS that counter the above points? Humanengr (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not need any, this is not a case of "ha! here is all the proof you need". This does not disprove the allegations, as it is an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WaPo classifies this article not as ‘opinion’ but as ‘Politics:Analysis”. If there are no more recent RS that counter the points of the article, then this is the most up-to-date. Prior, less-informed material is outdated. Humanengr (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about what the Russians did to interfere with the election. The social media onslaught was one of their initiatives. Whether it WORKED or not, or how well, has not been evaluated and so it is not within the scope of this article. For that matter, we also don't know if their other efforts (such as releasing the DNC and Clinton emails, or hacking into state election databases) were or were not determinative in the outcome of the election, and will probably never know. The social media stuff was part of their campaign and belongs in this article; User:Humanengr, if you meant to suggest it be removed, that idea is a non-starter. Thank you for now coming up with an actual proposed edit to the article - that's what we are supposed to be doing here - but I oppose this suggestion. It's one person's opinion; are there any other sources saying the same thing? (We do have a requirement for multiple reliable sources, especially for anything controversial.) In any case, a disclaimer or dismissive comment should certainly not be put at the BEGINNING of the section, as if to negate everything that follows. Can you come up with an "on the other hand Philip Bump says" type sentence to put at the end of the section? --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting that the ‘Social media and internet trolls’ section be removed. Are there any more recent sources that counter the points in Bump’s article? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether it WORKED or not, or how well, has not been evaluated... In fact, it has been, just never (to my knowledge) by anyone qualified to come to a trustworthy conclusion. I've yet to hear a real political science expert discuss whether or not it had any effect. The consensus among reporters, PR reps for the gubmint and talking heads has generally been that it had absolutely no effect on the election whatsoever, but I personally (along with many, many others) find that excruciatingly hard to believe, as it contradicts hundreds of years of political science research (and seems a little self-serving; accusing the Russians of not accomplishing anything). That being said, one hting we can know for sure is that we can never truly know exactly what effect it had, because we'd need to compare it to the same exact election, only without the interference in order to draw any such conclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus among reporters, PR reps for the gubmint and talking heads has generally been that it had absolutely no effect on the election whatsoever, That has not been my reading. Not at all. The consensus IMO is that it may or may not have had an effect but it is impossible to know, since people vote in secret and we don't know why they vote the way they do. I think Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight published an analysis saying that the Comey comments about Clinton were responsible for the outcome, but not many other commentators accepted it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I should possibly have said "the message I hear the most from..." rather than "the consensus of..." I haven't heard as much doubt as you have, but what you're saying isn't all that far from what I meant (even if I didn't quite say it right). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is disingenuous. Of course the degree to which Russia interfered in the election is relevant to an article called "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections."  Furthermore whether or not any of their actions could have been reasonably expected to interfere with the elections is relevant to whether or not there was any intention to interfere.  When you introduce this type of objection it delays discussion about the sources, their reliability and the weight of their opinions and prevents improvement of the article.  TFD (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Bump's view: Undue.  SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Humanengr, will you please stop claiming that this one analysis supersedes all previous analysis - unless we can come up with "more recent" (i.e., within the last two weeks) sources reiterating what they have been saying all along? Are they supposed to provide weekly updates? We do not have a rule here that the most recent report overrules all previous reports - particularly not when it contradicts all the previous material. As I asked above, you might want to suggest a sentence to add at the end of the section, summarizing Bump's analysis. If you can propose something like that, we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, please drop it because this is getting you (and us) nowhere. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, the issue is whether there is -any- RS that counters Himes point that, as of December 28, 2017, the House intelligence committee has not “seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of”, i.e., other than the two guilty pleas and two indictments. Can you identify such? tia, Humanengr (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The article's not really about the extent to which the ads achieved success or not. The inclusion of ads depends on whether Russia tried to interfere through them. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The nature and effectiveness of social media targeting and its possible effect on electoral outcomes is full of complex technical factors that will need to be studied and assessed by competent experts. Bump is not a competent expert. And in this column, his discourse doesn't rise above the level of glib chatter at the New Year's eve puncbowl. Sorry, not only is there nothing definitive here. It's worse -- just meaningless.-- In WP terms it's WP:UNDUE.  SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any RS disputing Bump’s statements? Humanengr (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Recapitulating: The discussion above brings out two points for inclusion — that, as of December 28, 2017: No one has offered RS to counter the above. Humanengr (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) “[T]he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.” [WaPo]
 * 2) The House intelligence committee “has not seen much evidence of any criminal collusion” [WaPo] beyond “the two guilty pleas and two indictments Mueller has obtained thus far.” [The Hill]


 * What are we talking about here? The social media strategy's effectiveness (or not), which is the apparent subject of this discussion section, or the evidence (or not) of criminal collusion, which seems completely unrelated to the listed topic, but which in any case means nothing because the evidence is being collected in secret? You do seem to have boiled down the social media issue to a single sentence, which is helpful. Can you clarify what you think should be put in the article? Are you proposing this direct quote from WaPo, or a paraphrase? --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You’re right that the discussion content doesn’t match the title. The latter, which is the title of Bump’s article, also doesn’t fully cover its content. Apologies for the misdirection.


 * While the title of Bump’s article focuses on effectiveness of the social media campaign, the content seems to speak more to how “minute” and “unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election”. And then the article also brings in that quote from Himes re collusion.


 * Thx for your patience and prompts. Hopefully the above helps, and I’ll give further thought on how to proceed. Humanengr (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

From Putin today
[Removed: “{atop|Only one out of six editors support this proposal, so consensus has been determined. Time to move on.- MrX 19:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)}”

Consensus requires some sense. All arguments have been dispensed. MrX violated rules in Template:Archive top by closing it despite being a discussant, further showing gross bias of those in control of this page. Beyond that, this discussion is proving highly informative.]

Per RT: Russia has never interfered in US internal affairs and is not planning to do so, Russian President Vladimir Putin said. He added that it is the US that “interferes everywhere” and should expect reciprocal action. No country would tolerate foreign interference in its internal affairs, Putin said, as he spoke at a meeting with the Russian media. He also said it is “absolutely wrong” that the US “constantly engages [in those sorts of activities] and makes attempts [to influence other countries’ internal political situations], believing that it is normal.” Or is RT not reliable for quotes from Putin? Humanengr (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is commentary very similar to what Putin said many times before. There's nothing noteworthy about it. RT is a source best avoided.- MrX 02:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I miss it, or are all of Putin’s points above already included in this article? You also didn’t answer my question. Humanengr (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, his relevant points are in the article. I answered your questions:"RT is a source best avoided." In other words, it is not a reliable source.- MrX 02:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Only the first sentence is addressed in some form in the article. Your answer avoids answering whether RT is reliable for quotes from Putin. Humanengr (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Primary source.  SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s Putin’s statement of his own position, so that’s a groundless objection. Humanengr (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * His position is "we didn't do it" and whataboutery. No thanks.- MrX 03:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s still his position and should be included as such, your objection not withstanding. His statement re U.S. interference is well documented. Oh, and re tu quoque, it’s not: Putin did not say that the accusation is false because the U.S. did it. The denial of the accusation preceded the assertion that the U.S. interferes. Humanengr (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Humane, you do not understand our sourcing policies around here. It's a primary source and it is UNDUE. Please read WP:WEIGHT. It's a blog.  SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Russia is not a “tiny minority”. Neither of you have indicated how RT is unreliable for a quote from Putin. Any other objections? Humanengr (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The opinion of Putin is already noted on the page. This is a long standing KGB strategy to deny the obvious. Philipp Bobkov is famous for telling his people: "Never admit anything even if you were caught with your pants down". The explicit and well known purpose of such comments is to disinform people. Therefore, they need to be "translated" in the opposite sense. For example, saying "there are no our people in Crimea" should be translated as "our people are there" (something he openly admitted later). Same with regard to all other official statements from the same source. There was actually an art of reading and translating comments by Soviet officials. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we move beyond Putin’s first sentence, please? Humanengr (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, the rest of it is irrelevant. It does not matter what the USA did this is not a school playground where "the big boys did it first" is a defense.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Background starts with ‘2.1 Russian interference in the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election’. Goose POV on prior bad acts but not gander POV. Humanengr (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should have raised an objection to that (one I have some sympathy with). But the presence of irrelvant information is not a justification for adding more.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the objection would more properly be yours or others in control here so effusive re NPOV. As in the § above: I’m ok with cutting the article down to “U.S. said Russia broke a U.S. law; Russian denied.” Should we start a thread on that? Humanengr (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your ‘What?’ should be directed at those pushing the neocon talking points here. Do you honestly expect me to tackle all such minutiae that pervade this page? I tried and failed on ‘alleged’ in the title, and succeeded only after intense effort on two framing points. The fact that you would foist additional onus on me speaks volumes. Humanengr (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you see an issue, yes you raise it, you do not just use it to justify another bad edit. Your the one who raised the issue of Ukraine, not me. I just agreed it was a problem that should be dealt with. NPOV means we remove "Ate my hamster" not add "but he ate a dog".Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s not just Ukraine; it’s the existence and entire content of this article. You want to put that burden on me rather than accept some responsibility for this fiasco? Humanengr (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by the whole article, much of it seems to directly be about the subject. Just like you, I cannot see everything, you raised one issue I agree its a problem. I can see no others if there are, yes you bring them to peoples attention.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the editor is questioning the underlying assumptions that Russia had every done anything wrong and therefore any mention of Ukraine being used as a test before the USA elections or even mention of the USA election meddling has no merit. The entire article should be deleted is what I'm hearing.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hum, please review and consider all the responses you've been given here and please read the site policies and editing guidelines.  SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did and, you’re right, none of the required competence is here. How else does one explain how so-called ‘progressives’ push a neocon narrative against the wrong target? It can’t simply be “RS says so and that’s what we report.” You wouldn’t be here if you didn’t buy the narrative and have that as motivation. So stop the faux innocence. Humanengr (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a hark back to And you are lynching Negroes, I don't see how Putin's latest denial + misdirection has a place in the article. ValarianB (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No soapboxing please.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ruminations on "reflections"
An editor has reinserted the gratuitous POV disparagement of Clinton here. Obviously, ordinary language tells our readers that when Sec'y Clinton spoke and and "reflected" she was presenting her assessment or opinion as to the matter. The gratuitous insertion of "what she said" conveys doubt, disparagement, and dishonesty.

Therefore I copy edited those words out while improving the continuity to make clear that this was still part of Clinton's reflection (i.e. opinion) and although this article is not under the "consensus required" restriction, normal editing and good sense tell us that this should not have been reinserted without discussion. These words should again be removed. (signed)  SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC), what she said.
 * I read it that way as well. Another possible rewrite is On December 15, 2016, Hillary Clinton gave a gratitude speech to her campaign donors in which she reflected on what she said were Putin's motivations for the covert operation on losing the election. Not everything in that paragraph is about Putin's motivations. There's some Comey stuff and other factors as well. The article should cover potential motivations more prominently than that anyway, sources other than Clinton probably exist. Geogene (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, those extra words would be appropriate if the mainstream view was established as different than her own, otherwise it's both unnecessary and does tend to cast doubt. I also agree with Geogene. "Putin's motivations for the covert operation" is an unnecessary introduction to what is covered in the very next five sentences.- MrX 01:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Another possibility is simply, "Clinton stated Putin's motivations..." I'm not trying to cast doubt on Clinton's statement, all dishonest disparagement aside. -Darouet (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to claim you made a "good faith" error, then please correct it with a quick self-revert while we all continue to improve the article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Above, stated, "SPECIFICO, your repeated personal criticism of Darouet is inappropriate. Such talk only leads to counter-accusations and degrades the tone of the page." You replied by again personally attacking me: "opinions of less active, less experienced, less productive editors than yourself is counterproductive here... I think we'd all be better off without carping or paratrooper appearances without any avenue to article improvement..." As far as I can tell that statement still strongly suggests WP:PERSONAL attacks and shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND (paratrooping) mentality.
 * For my edit being discussed here, I explained in the edit summary, "attributing to Clinton." In your revert you stated my edit was "pointy," i.e. violating WP:POINT. However, WP:NOTPOINTy explicitly states, As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I explained in my original edit summary what my objections were, and those objections were wholly consistent with my edit, so you had no grounds to invoke POINT, in the process failing to WP:AGF.
 * Here on the talk page, above, you have written that my edit is "gratuitous POV disparagement..." and "dishonest". You write I 'claim [I] made a "good faith" error", using a WP:WEASEL word and placing snark quotes to suggest I'm editing in WP:BADFAITH. It's impossible to even begin to have an editorial conversation when your knee-jerk reaction is is to fail to AGF, revert, and attack someone who disagrees with you. -Darouet (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please cut out the AGF bit. Quotation marks are used in English (and other languages I know) to indicate reference to the words rather than solely to their meaning. Nothing to do with snark, etc. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Like, both and  dislike my added phrase, "...she reflected on what she said were Putin's motivations for the covert operation." As far as I can tell, that phrasing is neutral with respect to judgement on Clinton's reflections. However, I'm just one reader and editor, and I could be wrong in my assessment. What I'd like to have is wording that, from an editorial perspective, appears to neither endorse nor cast doubt on Clinton's statements, and instead merely reports them.

Geogene and MrX suggest dropping the clause altogether, since what follows explains Clinton's view: "Hillary Clinton gave a gratitude speech to her campaign donors in which she reflected on losing the election." I don't object to that. SPECIFICO, does that seem reasonable to you? -Darouet (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Simplest fix would be to remove the POV smear and then we can see if anything needs to be fixed. I don't think this is really something that needs to rise to the level of a negotiation. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Geogene's suggestion as it better fits the succeeding text. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Somebody should implement. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Dartmouth research: Trump and fake news
I'm not sure where to put this, but it seems relevant here. A recent study from Dartmouth is receiving attention in secondary sources:

Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign

"People who supported Trump were far more likely to visit fake news websites — especially those that are pro-Trump — than Clinton supporters. Among Trump supporters, 40% read at least one article from a pro-Trump fake news website ... compared with only 15% of Clinton supporters.... Consumption of articles from pro-Clinton fake news websites was much lower, though also somewhat divided by candidate support. Clinton supporters were modestly more likely to have visited pro-Clinton fake news websites ... versus Trump supporters .... The differences by candidate preference that we observe in fake news website visits are even more pronounced when expressed in terms of the composition of the overall news diets of each group. Articles on fake news websites represented an average of 6.2% of the pages visited on sites that focused on news topics among Trump supporters versus 0.8% among Clinton supporters."

That's literally 8 times as much! That's very significant.

One secondary source, NBC News, interviewed one of the authors, Brendan Nyhan, and they discussed the findings. Here's an interesting quote:

NBC:
 * "It feels like there’s a connection between having an active portion of a party that’s prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you’re describing."

Nyhan:
 * "It’s worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it’s also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (emphasis added)

There should be other sources, but this is a good one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it mention Russia? If not then probably not relevant here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, it doesn't. I just assumed, that since much of the fake news did come from Russia and Macedonia, that it would mention it, but it doesn't. Since Kushner on the Trump campaign worked closely with Cambridge Analytica, and they worked directly with Facebook's marketing people, much of it may have come directly from the Trump campaign, using Facebook. Investigators also suspect that the Trump team/Cambridge also channeled data to Wikileaks and Russia, to help them fine tune the fake news they used to target voters.
 * Cambridge Analytica, the shady data firm that might be a key Trump-Russia link, explained. Why House investigators think this company might have helped Russia spread fake news.
 * This search brings up a whole lot about how Kushner and Facebook worked together, and some about the Russian connection to Cambridge and Assange. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Recapping from above § on WaPo’s Philip Bump on social media
From discussion above, the following summarizes re Russia social media activity and strategy: "Philip Bump, analyst for the Washington Post, wrote on December 28, 2017 “[W]hat we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts. … [T]he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.” WaPo" Any objections to adding as last para in Social media section? Humanengr (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC) @, So far found this from Salon: The article focuses on “what we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts.”
 * Oppose - Show 2-3 third party sources that cite this (WP:DUEWEIGHT) and change the partial quote to a well-written paraphrase, and I would probably support it.- MrX 04:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The ballyhooed Facebook ads were notably not targeted to be seen in swing states, the piece by Post journalist Philip Bump reports. As for the much-hyped tweets, they were smaller than minuscule in quantity compared to overall election-related tweets.

But don’t expect the fervent story about Russian manipulation of social media to fade away anytime soon. At this point, the Russiagate atmosphere has become so toxic, with incessant propaganda, credulity, fear-laced conformity and partisan opportunism, that basic logic often disintegrates.

One of the weirdest aspects of claims that Russia undermined the election with social media has involved explaining away the fact that few of the ads and posts in question actually referred to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or the election. Instead, we’re told, the wily Russians tried to help Trump by inflaming social divisions such as racial tensions. It’s a rampant storyline (rendered here by NBC News political director Chuck Todd) that’s reminiscent of the common claim during the civil rights movement that “outside agitators,” such as Russian-directed reds, were inflaming and exploiting racial tensions in the South.

@, how do you view this given the earlier discussion? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, keep working on it. By the way, my understanding is that Salon is not considered a very reliable source. Feel free to check WP:RSN to make sure I'm right about that.- MrX 15:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I had checked WP:RS; ref 6 — a Salon story — actually critiques Junk food news and is cited for such purpose. Humanengr (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @, see also HuffPo. Does the following suffice?
 * "As of December 28, 2017, the collected public evidence did not support the allegation that the Russians “executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory”. [WaPo] As an analyst for the Washington Post concluded “[W]hat we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself, and minute in the context of election social media efforts.” [WaPo]"
 * Humanengr (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the Washington Post would be a good source and the contributed article by Norman Solomon would be supportive.- MrX 21:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx for that, . And to for earlier discussion. Humanengr (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently Twitter and Facebook did very poor job with investigating these claims . But I do not think this should be described in a lot of detail on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You state that as fact. It was from a report commissioned by Dems. Humanengr (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why it's effectiveness is relevant, it does not matter how effective I am at breaking the law, only that I am breaking it).Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On that criterion, I’m ok with cutting the article down to “U.S. said Russia broke a U.S. law; Russian denied.” I note, e.g., the 2nd sentence of the body begins “They said Putin's motives were a vendetta against Hillary Clinton and the desire to foment global distrust of the U.S.” Should we start a thread on that? Humanengr (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no substantive objections … Humanengr (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is undue and SYNTHy <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for inclusion of this material, so why are you adding this in? (Also, the use of rollback here was an accident, I meant to merely undo).Volunteer Marek (talk)

@, there was extensive earlier discussion; all substantive objections on this material have been addressed. The only substantive opposer, now concurs. To say there is no consensus is not correct. Do you have any specific objection? Humanengr (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This kind of passive aggressive interaction is unconstructive, but when you use it as a pretext to move over to the article page and mangle the text, then you have crossed the line to disruption. I see that you preemptively tried to insert this in the article. CLUE: When you have "consensus" it will be obvious -- you won't have to put your nose to the wind like a foxhound to sense what others cannot fathom. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any RS disputing Bump’s statements? Humanengr (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We dont need any, unless he is a world renowned expert. Otherwise this is just one correspondents opinion. Also (as I have already pointed out) he slightly misrepresents at least one persons opinions. So why should we assume he is any ore accurate with anything else he says?Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you referring to this edit? This is not the Himes material we were discussing earlier. Humanengr (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your criterion would seem to delete most or all ostensible RS used here. Aside from that, 1) Bump has been cited previously in this article; 2) WaPo, an ‘RS’, did not publish this as ‘Opinion’ but as ‘Analysis’. Which WP policy supports your selective application? Humanengr (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked if any of the points had been refuted, I pointed out he altered a quote. As to the other points, as he provides no evidence to support them then they do not disprove those points, thus there is no need to provide counter points. Nor does it matter if we use him as a source, it is what we are saying that matters. Also we only have to say "it had little effect according to..." if we also say"It had a majuor impact according to..." do we?21:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
 * Bump cites “A little-noticed statement from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, detailed how unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election.” Humanengr (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, re the Himes material, you did not respond to my proposed edit in view of your request for “his own words”. Humanengr (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

And re your “One is worded in a way that can be read as saying that he has not seen much evidence, the other says he has not seen much more (or in other words he has seen more)”, I’m not sure how you get that from:

WaPo: “… he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.” vs The Hill: “… he hasn’t ‘seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of”

“much” vs “a lot” “the American people weren’t/aren’t already aware of”

Kindly tell me how can the first but not the second be read “he has not seen much evidence”?

I tried to accommodate your objection in discussion above; you didn’t respond; and now on closer examination, a question arises as to your reading. Humanengr (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And started this one up, maybe if you had kept this discussion in one place it might make it easier to respond. Also this is your new suggestion is it not? Also I note you left out "I am not sure".In addition it leaves it the factoid he also said that he thought there was more evidence to come. You asked for proof that the article was flawed, I have provided some.
 * In addition you have not made a case as to why we need this, what does is it a counter point to. If it is not what does it add to our understanding of what happened. Does it materially add to our knowledge of what the Russians did? Why (simply) do we need this mans opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re your: “And started this one up, maybe if you had kept this discussion in one place it might make it easier to respond. Also this is your new suggestion is it not?”
 * Me at 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC), in response to you:
 * "On December 28, 2017, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee, when asked whether he had “seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign”, said “Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. … [O]f course, remember, … it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet.”"
 * After 4 days of you not responding, I split out the part that and I were discussing into this new §.
 * Re your: “Also I note you left out ‘I am not sure’.”
 * No. See above.
 * In addition it leaves it the factoid he also said that he thought there was more evidence to come.
 * No. See above.
 * Re your: “You asked for proof that the article was flawed, I have provided some.”
 * You have provided zero proof the article was flawed. Did you even read what I wrote prior to your last response?
 * Before proceeding to your final points, is the above clear? Humanengr (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is what clear about the above? I said that the piece had misrepresented what was said to make it more equitable then it was. It is not just about the alteration of one or two words, but omissions of key points. As to not responding, because all we would get is getting what we have now, going round in circles. You do not have consensus to include this material, however you try and re-word the question. What you have to do is explain why his views are important enough for inclusion, all you do is shout "do you have RS that dispute his claims". Well I did provide such an example oh how his claims and what other RS say do not quite tally. You have failed to explain why this is not the case, did he or did he not fail to mention that Himes had said he was not sure he had seen "not a lot more" (for example), if the answer is "no he did not mention it" then that is a difference between what he claims and what other RS claim.
 * I will not respond anymore here either as it is clear this is going nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Aah and oops — I see now it was my bad re the “I’m not sure”. Will redo the Himes quote separately per your “his own words” instruction below, citing CNN rather than Bump. This will be the same as what I offered above that you did not respond to. (Btw, I’ve been scolded here before for pinging when in direct discussion, else I would have done so to draw your attention to it.) Humanengr (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do we need it, what new does it tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Answered in new section below. Let’s continue there as the source is different. Humanengr (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, @, do you object to including the following from the Burr statement that Bump cites (setting aside any introductory statement for the moment)?
 * Maryland was targeted by nearly five times as many ads as was Wisconsin (262 to 55).
 * Thirty-five of the 55 ads targeting Wisconsin ran during the primary.
 * More ads targeted DC than Pennsylvania.
 * A total of $1,979 was spent in Wisconsin — $1,925 of it in the primary.
 * The spending in Michigan and Pennsylvania were $823 and $300, respectively.
 * More of the geographically targeted ads ran in 2015 than in 2016.
 * thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is any of that relevant (especially given that your elections start with the primaries).Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

From WP:JDLI: === Article content === Editing disputes are expected to be settled by reasoned civil discourse, and editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified—without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions—from reliable and independent sources. The Neutral Point of View requires that we make the best efforts to leave our innate prejudices at the door when we edit here, be they political, social, geographic, linguistic, cultural, or otherwise. Writing for the enemy indeed recommends that we actively attempt to include points of view that counter our own prejudices. Kindly advise as to any objections raised fall outside that scope. Humanengr (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Does the source say any the following A, The Russians did not interfere. B, It had no impact. C, There was no conclusion between Trump (or his associates) and the Russians. If it does not say any of this why is it relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Return of SYNTH
After I purged the OR SYNTH insinuation that the Russian social media campaign did not affect the 2016 US Election, modified nonsense has been edit-warred back into the article here:. #Sad. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO, the "OR SYNTH insinuation" is practically taken directly out of the Guardian article, and I quote: Less than half of the ads were seen prior to the US election on 8 November, Schrage said in the post, while 56% were viewed after. And roughly a quarter of the ads were not seen by anyone.. You're implying that the Guardian, which we're citing, is itself producing "OR SYNTH insinuation that the Russian social media campaign did not affect the 2016 US Election," which you describe as "modified nonsense." Yes, sad. -Darouet (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That edit also inserts a baldfaced misrepresentation of the cited NY Times reference about Clinton's discussion of Putin's motivations for the Russian interference and cherrypicks a minor mention of her loss that occurs at the tail end of the long article. , please read the cited source and undo this bad edit. Rather than continuing to reinsert your POV, please use talk. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I already implemented the fix that you and others recommended above, removing the problematic sentence entirely, so I'm not sure what this is about. -Darouet (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The 56% bit is virtually verbatim from the source, and there's no shortage of pundits (left- and right-leaning) saying that there's no evidence the interference affected the outcome of the election. I have no comment on the Clinton bit, not having read that source yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the fix I implemented comes directly out of this discussion, and was not the solution I'd originally proposed, but rather Geogene's. -Darouet (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a cherrypicked and artfully stated meaningless statistic that gives the impression that there was little impact from those ads because most clicks were after the election. Well, time after the election is infinite and one day in another solar system the races that descend from humanity will be able to read that 99.99999% of the clicks happened in the 32 milennia following the 2016 election.  Not everything printed in a source adds to an NPOV informative narrative. I would have thought this was clear enough from the discussion above, but at any rate it reads like a sotto voce aside to the readers to disregard the needless fuss over the Russian interference campaign on social media. And of course, also discussed previously on this talk page, it plays into facebook's self-serving narrative that everything's good with facebook -- notwithstanding that they've already been called out for prevaricating, bobbing and weaving about these ads. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can send a letter to the Guardian...? -Darouet (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we under some obligation to include everything that Guardian prints? Geogene (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Darouet: That's a complete BS deflection. Our job as editors is to present NPOV text by giving due weight and an organized consistent narrative. After all BLP violations, SYNTH, UNDUE and other prohibited edits may all come from RS citations. Please review my objection and respond to the substance of the problem here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Himes CNN interview
[refresh using different source than earlier discussion]

Jim Himes interview with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota:

Camerota: Have you seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign?

Himes: Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. And of course remember, the Congress is not about investigating crimes. The FBI and Robert Mueller are about that, and of course Robert Mueller has secured two guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and from George Papadopoulos, and of course, has indicted two other individuals, and it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet. So of course like a lot of Americans, I am waiting to see whatever else ….

Suggested paraphrase to add to the U.S. House of Representatives §:

"On December 28, 2017, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee, when asked whether he had “seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign”, said “Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. … [O]f course, remember, … it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet.”"

As that section stands, the last statement re status of evidence is Schiff’s March 22 from an article “Schiff: ‘More Than Circumstantial Evidence’ Trump Associates Colluded With Russia”. The above suggestion clarifies and updates that by bounding what the committee has seen.

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Adds nothing. Drop it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Does the Schiff statement indicate any upper limit to the extent of evidence seen to-date by the House committee? Humanengr (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When poker players are holding their cards close to their bodies, don't trust what they say. The same applies here. They can't say too much, and can't allude to too much, for fear of giving away information to suspects. That means there really isn't enough here to use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know there is more evidence? Have been doing WP:OR? :) Yes or no — does the Schiff statement indicate any upper limit to the extent of evidence seen to-date by the House committee? Humanengr (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well lets see, he is not sure he has not, and he says that Muller has still a way to go. Yes that seems to me he is implying that there may well be more evidence, we (and maybe he) is just not yet aware of it.
 * Also why is this even relevant, what does it actually tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For sake of discussion, I’ll go along with your interpretation that “there may well be more evidence” that Mueller has or might provide. What this edit is directed at though is clarifying what evidence the committee has seen. I read Himes saying “I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of” as conveying either that “I have not seen any” or “It’s very unlikely I have seen a lot”, so the reader is led to accept both possibilities. Am I being fair in my interpretation of the Himes statement? Humanengr (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly explain. Humanengr (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @, thx for persevering on this. Humanengr (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will ask again, why is the Himes interview relevant, what does it add?08:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

@! The last indicated status re what the committee has seen is “On March 22, 2017, Schiff stated that he had seen evidence of a higher standard than circumstantial regarding collusion.” That conveys a definite sense of more evidence. How much more is not conveyed except that it is beyond an indicated level (circumstantial).

The Himes statement — even with the maximal interpretation “It’s very unlikely I have seen a lot” — clarifies by bounding how much more evidence the committee has seen. Again, this is separate from what Mueller might have or will provide. Does that answer your question? Humanengr (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly it is different from the investigation, and thus is at best of of limited use. It is far to vague to be a boundary for anything "I might own this land but I am not sure" is not a boundary. All this tells us is that the committee might have seen more evidence of collusion then the public are aware of. Also Schiffs statement does not say "more then the public" it says "more then circumstantial".Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re your 1st point, “it is different from the investigation”: Schiff’s: statement is about what the committee has seen, is it not? Humanengr (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My point was "Exactly it is different from the investigation, and thus is at best of of limited use." Schiff's statement is also nothing to do with the investigation, but is emphatic rather then vague (as you can see that is my point, the Himes quote is too vague to be of any real value). If it were directly related to the investigation there might be a valid reason for including it, as he is not there is not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Something can be ‘emphatic’ and misleading, wrong, or out-of-date. Re ‘vague’, Schiff is infinitely vague on the upper limit because he doesn’t say anything about it; Himes is vague but only as to whether there is -any- more or only a low probability of more. The latter is a narrower range and hence less vague. The only reason to stay with the former is one wants to leave the impression that what the committee has seen does not have an upper bound.Humanengr (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "upper limit" we do not have to quantify (and the Himes quote is even more vague about this "upper limit", as he is not even sure of what he says) what he means. Also I fail to see why issue of being factual correct are addressed by Himes (or even why you raise it). Also we do not know what HImes is unsure about, as he does not tell us, he may just as well be unsure that in fact the American people know as much as he thinks they do. All of this (of course) still ignore the fact that one is talking about evidence known to the public, and the other is talking about evidence being circumstantial or not, and these are not synonymous.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And more "then circumstantial" clearly means he has seen evidence of collusion. We don't know how much more, or of what type, but he's seen enough to clearly imply that collusion did happen.
 * Himes statement implies that he knows of crimes, and that we are "already aware of" them too. He's just not willing to say if he knows of more than we are "already aware of". He is bound to secrecy as long as the investigation is under way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we finally drop this? In the first place, Himes' comment is so hedged as to have almost no factual significance. In the second place, if we are actually considering using it, it should be balanced by the opinion of Rep. Ted Lieu, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, who predicted there will be more indictments this year. Bottom line, IMO there is no value to this article in citing individual opinions from individual legislators. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree so this is my last comment on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

What Papadopoulos told Downer
User:TheTimesAreAChanging, you have twice removed from the article the information that Papadopoulos told Downer that the Russians had a dirt file on rival candidate Hillary Clinton "in the form of hacked Democratic Party emails". You said this was an “unsourced false claim” because you said “the NYT was unable to confirm” what emails he was talking about. But the reference cited for that sentence - the Sydney Morning Herald - says the information has been independently confirmed by Fairfax Media (the Herald’s parent company). The actual quote is "Fairfax Media has confirmed independently that the conversation first reported by The New York Times took place. In May 2016, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos told Mr Downer over drinks at an upscale London wine bar that the Russians had a dirt file on rival candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of hacked Democratic Party emails." Presumably their information comes from an Australian source (remember, the other party to the conversation was Australian) and is independent of the NYT. Thus the information is sourced to a reliable source and should be retained. I suggest you revert yourself and restore it. And I suggest you be more careful about accusing people of inserting false information. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand this removal. Fairfax media is a major Oceana Region news outlet of longstanding and sterling reputation. I agree this should be restored and if TTAAC wishes to impeach the source, RSN would be the place to raise any issues with its credibility. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of these comments, which is why I reverted it the first time.- MrX 02:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I'm getting tired of editors who carry water for Putin and Trump. When those men deny something, DON'T BELIEVE THEM! It's really that simple. Such editors need to stop reading unreliable sources and learn from our content here. It's been vetted, unlike FoxNews, Breitbart, etc. Failure to learn from our content shows a lack of judgement. If they can't tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, and still get their info from unreliable ones, then they constantly create disruption here. One would think that 16,142 edits since 2010-10-08 would be enough time to learn this. SMH. I'm still going to AGF in their good will, but competence is required here. Good will isn't enoughOne must learn and then change one's mind accordingly. Maybe, just maybe, mainstream RS are better than right-wing (and extreme left-wing) ones. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN and MrX repeatedly and falsely claimed that it has been confirmed that the emails of which Papadopoulos boasted were the same Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks in July 2016. In fact, even Papadopoulos himself is unlikely to know for sure whether that is the case. That The New York Times's report has been independently corroborated is irrelevant because the Times never made the claim attributed to it by MelanieN and MrX. Shortly after The New York Times went to print, The Sydney Morning Herald published a derivative account that opened with "Fairfax Media has confirmed independently that the conversation first reported by The New York Times took place," before going on to briefly summarize the contents of the conversation in question: "'In May 2016, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos told Mr Downer over drinks at an upscale London wine bar that the Russians had a dirt file on rival candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of hacked Democratic Party emails. Mr Downer conveyed the conversation to Canberra via an official cable, though apparently not immediately—perhaps because he did not take the 28-year-old adviser's claims altogether seriously until the hacked emails were released by Wikileaks in late July.'" MelanieN, fueled by confirmation bias and in defiance of common sense, inflated the careless parsing in bold into the extravagant claim that The Sydney Morning Herald had scooped America's paper of record and then buried the lead, while all of America's mainstream media failed to report on the alleged breaking news.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really confused. What are you really trying to say? What do you think happened to the emails from the time they were stolen from the DNC servers and they were released by Wikileaks? What's the timeline you're seeing? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging TheTimesAreAChanging. I'd like to see your view on how this "really" happened, and thus how the rest of us are getting it wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that the general public is fully aware of the extent of all hacked emails, and that any hacked emails would have been released for public consumption. If you discard that assumption as baseless, then there are many possible interpretations of what Mifsud told Papadopoulos and Papadopoulos told Downer—including that the Russians likely hacked Hillary's private email server, as cybersecurity experts were suggesting at the time. Even if the most likely scenario is, in fact, that Mifsud was alluding to the specific DNC emails ultimately released by WikiLeaks, there would still be no basis for saying so in Wikipedia's voice absent confirmation in a reliable source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have often been sympathetic to your opinions here and do trust your intelligence, but as far as I can tell, and  are correct that these quotes are coming directly out of the sources. Even if those being quoted are incorrect, we're attributing the statements to them. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Darouet, there's a vast difference between MelanieN's edit and BullRangifer's edit, which I think would be obvious if you actually took the time to compare them. I am not objecting to BullRangifer's edit, since it does not go beyond what the cited RS say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging, what is that "vast difference"? It apparently, in your mind, is important. What are we not seeing?
 * Russia was in possession of "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of hacked Democratic National Committee emails. Melanie (actually an edit by MrX):
 * Russia was in possession of "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton. "had a dirt file on rival candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of hacked Democratic Party emails". BR:
 * Please enlighten us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX was reinstating this edit by MelanieN. I've already explained that there is a vast difference between "After the DNC emails were published by Wikileaks in July" and "After the emails were published by Wikileaks in July." If that's still not obvious to you, it probably won't ever be.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

TheTimes, I asked you once before to be more careful about accusing people of making false statements. Instead you doubled down and expanded your personal attacks. Now I am not just making false claims; I am also blinded by confirmation bias and lacking in common sense. I am a patient person, but this kind of blast violates talk page policy, and if repeated is likely to have consequences. Now to the meat of the matter: you remain convinced that the only source that knows anything about this is the New York Times, and that any other reports must be simply derivative of their reporting. You are so sure of that belief that you are willing to throw around wild accusations and ignore the plain wording of the source: They (the Morning Herald) have an independent source which gave them independent information. They acknowledged the NYT for its scoop, a journalistic courtesy, and then went on to report what their source told them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Fairfax Media has confirmed independently that the conversation first reported by The New York Times took place" has nothing in common with MelanieN's idiosyncratic interpretation "They (the Morning Herald) have an independent source which gave them independent information." That interpretation is unique to her alone, and seems to have occurred to no-one else, including all of America's mainstream media—as well as the Herald itself, which never mentions WikiLeaks again after this brief digression, and which carried the anodyne headline "Joe Hockey discussed Alexander Downer's Russia revelations with FBI" rather than (say) "EXCLUSIVE: Papadopoulos Had Foreknowledge of WikiLeaks Email Dump, Source Says." MelanieN also failed to consider that an Australian source, as opposed to Papadopoulos's and Mifsud's ultimate Russian source, would not likely be in any position to confirm such claims in the first place.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW TheTimes, a question for you: if Papadopoulos didn’t tell the Australian that the dirt was in the form of hacked Democratic Party emails - if he just said the Russians had unspecified dirt - then why did the Australians suddenly decide to report the conversation to the U.S. government when hacked DNC emails appeared on Wikileaks? Why would the Australians have made that connection, if it hadn’t been part of what Papadopoulos told Downer? This looks like something suggested by common sense even if the NYT didn't mention it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "if Papadopoulos ... just said the Russians had unspecified dirt" is not an argument that I have made. "why did the Australians suddenly decide to report the conversation to the U.S. government when hacked DNC emails appeared on Wikileaks? Why would the Australians have made that connection, if it hadn't been part of what Papadopoulos told Downer? This looks like something suggested by common sense even if the NYT didn't mention it." The sequence of events logically suggests exactly the opposite of what MelanieN infers: That the Australians waited two months to inform the U.S. government of Papadopoulos's conversation with Downer indicates that they did not consider Papadopoulos's drunken rant specific or credible enough to be actionable, not that Papadopoulos predicted the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak two months in advance. That said, obviously, it would have been foolish to casually dismiss Papadopoulos's remarks as coincidence after the leak occurred; therefore, the Australians belatedly passed this information to the U.S. for further investigation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let’s please focus on what the article should actually say. You say Papadopoulos ... just said the Russians had unspecified dirt" is not an argument that I have made. If you aren’t arguing that Papadopoulos just said the Russians had some kind of unspecified dirt, what ARE you arguing? Did he mention emails, or not? If he did, is it just the specific reference to “Democratic National Commitee emails” that you are objecting to, and would you be OK if that reference is removed? For example, how about “In May 2016 at a London wine bar, Papadopoulos told the top Australian diplomat to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer, that Russia possessed ‘dirt’ on rival candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of hacked emails"? We already have the NYT’s word for it that Mifsud told Papadopoulos that much. If you prefer we can say “stolen emails” as the NYT does, instead of “hacked”, but they mean the same thing and it creates redundancy within the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also "stolen" could be taken to include the conspiracy theories about how some insider walked out with stolen emails on a thumb drive. I think that since we have two independent RS citations for "hacked" the use of the word is straightforward, and it unambiguously states what RS tell us. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. TheTimes, is this wording - "in the form of hacked emails" - OK with you? That wording is used by the NYT article that you feel should be the only acceptable source here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it's fine with me—just as BullRangifer's edit is fine with me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer's edit, that you linked to above, said "hacked Democratic Party emails". I will restore that. If you had made it clear that it was merely the "Democratic National Committee" part of the edit you were objecting to, you could have saved us all a lot of time and arguing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that's what the article says now, so what have we been arguing about? --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * EC: There's nothing to "restore," since BullRangifer was not reverted. Also, the more serious problem with your edit and MrX's reinsertion was changing "After the DNC emails were published by Wikileaks in July" to "After the emails were published by Wikileaks in July," which completely changes the meaning of the sentence. If you had been more careful with your language and MrX had not immediately reverted my simple and much-needed fix, that could also have saved us all a lot of time and arguing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've often noticed here: if people will stop arguing about facts/beliefs/theories and instead concentrate on what they think the article should say, it's amazing how quickly the discussion can be resolved. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Or as Amit Ray said: "Stop overthinking, put more energy on what you really want to do." Dostoyevsky was more direct. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You need a specific "Evidence of Interference" page. Without all the hearsay or circumstantial "evidence."
There's a page specifically dedicated to providing Evidence of Evolution ("evidence of common descent"), created to counter claims that there is no evidence of evolution. There are specific claims that there is no evidence of Russian interference. When I open up this page, I see (paraphrasing) "government organizations concluded that it happened," and statements like "this intelligence official stated that Russia brazenly interfered." I then go to the "timeline of Russian interference" page, and I see events like "Donald Trump says he 'does a lot of business with Russia' and 'has met Vladimir Putin.' That's not a documented event that is related to Russian interference, Trump has said literally thousands of things about thousands of topics. As well as in March 2016 "John Podesta is asked to change his e-mail due to a phishing attempt BELIEVED to be by Russian hackers." These articles are blatantly inflated with weak claims and circumstantial evidence to make them look like they have a lot of real direct substance.

The strongest thing I see, in this mess, are claims that Russia hacked e-mails, which MAY be the case, though Assange claimed that the source for Wikileak's e-mail dumps was actually a leak in the DNC. But IF Russia did actually hack e-mails, then THAT is the subject of your article. But since wikipedia should be a source of actual information and not empty quotes and beliefs, you should create a specific article to collect ACTUAL evidence, in terms of documents and real information. No hearsay or claims about "beliefs" or Donald Trump holding a pageant in Russia. This article is clearly the result of political biases on behalf of editors, which is an embarrassment to wikipedia. 67.82.83.27 (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:OSE.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not really see this as a valid point to make, making the case for scientific theories is not the same as a political controversy, not at all. The article follows the cited sources, it does not make its own conclusion in the Wikipedia Voice. ValarianB (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is personal commentary that's not actionable and should be archived. OP clearly has political issues with the topic and is here to shit on the article. Geogene (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem is that the article does NOT label this as a political controversy. It states unequivocally that the interference occurred, then provides large amounts of hearsay and little-to-not documented evidence. For comparison sake, the article on the "Birther" movement labels it immediately as a conspiracy theory, as it should. Likewise for 9/11 Conspiracies. There's inherent judgement about the status of a controversy in the very title of the articles. If you want to state that something occurred instead of addressing it as a controversy and referring to it during the article as a fact and not a controversey, then you need factual data. That's not this article. You should have a dedicated article just for facts and direct evidence. You're welcome to block people from commenting on it, but this does not take the form of other articles on political controversies or conspiracy theories. It states the situation as fact with only hearsay and circumstantial evidence. And of course, instead of defending this, you try to personally attack the respondents and block them from discussing the issue, which doesn't surprise me. A wise person once said that you shouldn't become a monster when you fight monsters. When you start slanting information on wikipedia out of hatred for Donald Trump, you've become a monster yourself. Now go ahead and block the feedback. This article is an embarrassment to wikipedia, and you can't even defend how non-neutral and weak it is.67.82.83.27 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it? It says that US intelligence think it happened, not that it did. And users get blocked for soapboxing (talking about "issues" and "censorship". We are here to talk about this article only (and how to improve it) not the wrongs of Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a "controversy" because there is no significant viewpoint in reliable sources that Russia did not interfere in the election. Similarly, it's not a "conspiracy theory" because reliable sources don't call it that. If you want the intelligence community's evidence, as opposed to merely their public statements, you will need to call the President and ask him to declassify it for you. Your anger at Wikipedia is misplaced. Geogene (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I say this with respect: compare ‘s “Does it? It says that US intelligence think it happened, not that it did.” With ’s “This is not a "controversy" because there is no significant viewpoint in reliable sources that Russia did not interfere in the election.}} “not that it did” vs “no significant viewpoint in reliable sources that Russia did not interfere“.
 * My focus here (in case it isn’t evident) has been on exactly this point of framing. I (and others) have long argued unsuccessfully for framing the page with ‘alleged’ (or similar) in the title. Slatersteven — given the above contrast, where do you now stand on that? Humanengr (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have stated before I have no major issue with "alleged" but neither do I have a major issue with it not being included. I would rather we did say "Allegations", but I am afraid that view is becoming weaker the more opposition to the idea it happened shifts from "it did not happen" to "it was not significant". But the "contrast" is irrelevant, I can think what a user said is daft and still not agree that what another user says is daft.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a cite for “that view is becoming weaker” or “opposition … shifts”? Thx Humanengr (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks like trolling to me. Geogene (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said this is my view.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Aah, I had read the ‘that’ in “I am afraid that view is becoming weaker” as indicating you thought the general public’s sense of ‘interference’ as being ‘allegations’ was becoming weaker and moving from “it did not happen” to “it as not significant”. I spent some time trying to locate longitudinal polls on that without success; hence my question. Humanengr (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

and this thread is the subject of an ongoing discussion at AN/I. Please thread your replies correctly, so that my remarks don't change context. Especially you, Humanengr. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , Slatersteven inserted at the same level as mine but prior to yours. It looks like that should have been inserted after yours and at the same level. That was the original error. Perhaps I should have corrected that before responding to Slatersteven. Apparently, in your eyes, that warrants an ‘especially’ directed at me. Humanengr (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it?I just looked at ANI and see no active thread on this subject. There is one about you, not about this topic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm the OP here posting from a different IP. Humanengr is correct. If you want to have an article labeled WITHOUT reference to a controversy, allegations, or conspiracy, then you should have direct factual evidence of it. The fact that people were arrested or tried over something is not evidence that something occurred, convictions might be, otherwise you would have to label the McCarthy Hearings as matters of factual prosecution of Communists in the United States. Lastly, to Slatersteven, I did NOT criticize wikipedia as a whole, I criticized this article and said it's incredibly non-neutral and lax standards, using hearsay, appeals to authority and circumstantial evidence, combined with editors looking to personally attack those who question the evidence and block criticism, as an embarrassment to wikipedia. If I say someone is an embarrassment to the military, that's an insult to the person, not the military. The way you tried to relabel it was highly inappropriate. 24.184.166.109 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No soapboxing please.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t commented here, regarding this as a tired issue that has often been raised before and has never come close to achieving consensus. But I will say, just for the record, that I oppose any addition of “alleged” or “allegation” to this article title or lede, or any kind of “evidence for and against” sections. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Melanie on this. The FBI treats the allegations as credible to such an extent that arrests have been made over it. Congress is investigating it, journalists are investigating it, some elements have been shown to almost certainly have taken place (and I mean "almost certainly" in the same sense that the sun will almost certainly rise tomorrow) exactly as alleged. There is no significant RS view that the interference did not happen. For us to word this article such as to sow doubt that is not present in the sources as a whole would be dishonest and a disservice to the reader. This includes doing things like attempting to highlight and exaggerate the relative dearth of publicly accessible evidence, or presenting highly dubious evidence against it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Re the RFC on criticism of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?
Just to box this RFC off, and as a point of order, there was an RFC on this article, which was archived without being closed. It can be found at Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections/Archive_17. I don't like editing archive pages, so just noting here that I would have closed that RFC as stale (no comments in 5 weeks) and achieving no firm consensus. Cheers, <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c">fish &amp;<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33">karate 11:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Minority report
This report was mentioned on the page, but I think it should be more prominently used, possibly in background section, because it provides a much wider perspective on these events. This is not a series of isolated incidents, but a part of a well designed and successful strategy to suppress democracy in a number of countries. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this minority report. We would need to be careful how we use this. What do you suggest writing?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking about sources, in addition to report itself (I think it qualify as secondary RS and includes interesting Appendices ), there are RS which discuss this report, such as or . What should be included? At the very least the conclusion or summary, which is in essence "The report commissioned by the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is the first from Congress to comprehensively detail Russian efforts to undermine democracies... Labeling Russia’s activities an “asymmetric assault on democracy,” the report notes that elections in countries such as Britain, France and Germany were reportedly targeted by Moscow-sponsored hacking, internet trolling and financing for extremist political groups. The report also credits those nations and smaller European countries, such as Finland and Estonia, for responding quickly and often with effect" (from last ref). But the Report actually covers a period of time since 1999 and a number of different events. I would have to think about it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So this is in fact a report on behalf of one person, it is not by the committee?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to CNN, Titled "Putin's Asymmetrical Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for U.S. National Security," it was researched and written by Cardin staff members who interviewed European ambassadors in the US and traveled to Europe to talk to government officials, NGOs and media groups about Russian interference in their countries. So, this is not an official position by US government (apparently). This is a research publication and an official report by a member of US Senate who was responsible for that policy (The report comes one year after Senator Cardin introduced the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act of 2017, which served as the basis for the sanctions package signed into law last August). This is also something widely reported in multiple RS. Maybe the report deserves a separate page, I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is one report, by one politicians staff (who would not have had access to all kinds of material). It has no official sanction and represents just his opinion. I think it has all the coverage it deserves.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not about providing more coverage for Report. This is about using this Report and other related publications as RS on the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Include the proposed text. It gives useful background and has secondary sourcing. Geogene (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this would pass muster for anything more then his opinion, and I am not sure the article would benefit from huge amounts of material from members of the committee.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's where WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV comes in. I see that's technically not a proposed text but a quote from a source. That doesn't matter, something like that could work. Geogene (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In a section above I argued that a single committee members view is not really relevant, I cannot in all conscience now change that view. If this was an official report it might be different (by his committee), it is not. If I (or anyone else) accept we can include this then we must include all of the members of that communities views. I cannot countenance that idea, so cannot make an exception in this case.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I made an edit on the page to clarify what I mean. Anyway, the Background section needs a couple of introductary phrases. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why I asked what you wanted to why, why should this one persons view be at the top? It is neither a fact nor a majority view.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think these should be different phrases in the beginning of Background or something different, then welcome to fix. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think this should be at the beginning, it gives it undue prominence.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe this should be moved somewhere or be written differently or whatever. But from what I read on the subject, the conclusions by Report seems to be correct conclusions, scientifically speaking. Yes, I know, WP is different. Here we must care about the majority of sources view on the subject, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, rephrased and very briefly mentioned in the end of another section. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If anyone has objections, please state them here. So far there were none. The report seem to be significant enough to be mentioned on the page with one phrase explaining what it tells. But I am not opposed to using it as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I still fail to see why this is any more relevant then any other members views.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What "other members views" are you talking about? Sources? If there are other notable and recent published views by other members by Senate, and they were not included on the page, they also must be included. This particular view is notable because, (a) it was published as an official document for the Senate, (b) it was widely covered in secondary RS, and (c) it is generally painted in RS (NYT, WP, etc.) as a view by democratic minority. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I objected to the inclusion of the Himes material for this reason (or am I thinking of one of the other Umpteen pages about this topic?). As to being "an official document for the Senate", only in the sense that any document written officially by a senator is. It was not (however) commissioned or published on behalf of the committee (or the senate).Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not me who included this report on the page. I only think that we need to add one phrase explaining what this report tells. It does appear highly notable to me based on the content and wide coverage in other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Republican Memo has received wide coverage too, and I objected to it's inclusion. The material that matters is actual evidence or (at the very least) official findings. Not one elected official (or even a (what is the collective noun for politicians, a corruption?) a mob of them).Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That memo was pro-fringe and in opposition to the mainstream viewpoint. Do you really not see the difference? Geogene (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as they were produced by the same kinds of people, in the same way. I cannot allow one "this was done by my paid staff" POV and disallow another. If the report by the senator represents the main stream view, why not use a better (say legal or academic) source, rather then (what is in effect) an opinion piece?Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no judgement if Republican Memo should be included. Maybe it should (where was the discussion?). You tell: "The material that matters is actual evidence or official findings." Yes, that matters, but looking from the sourcing perspective, the Report looks to me just like a great review article with mainstream position on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do any academic sources exist yet? Those actually would be preferable. Geogene (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, I am not the one throwing around "fringe theory" accusations. By the way, do most people accept (RS, of course) it happened?Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you don't believe that Russia interfered in the 2016 election? Geogene (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What I believe or do not believe is irrelevant, we go with how RS describe it. There are many things I do not agree with here on Wikipedia, but as I am not RS it does not count. So unless you can demonstrate that most RS say it did happen (rather then say call it an allegation) then we cannot act as if that is what most RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A lot of RS (including the report under discussion) tell, assume or imply that the "interference" did actually happen, and it is only natural that majority of people familiar with the subject personally believe that it did happen (essentially as a matter of fact) because there is so much direct and circumstantial evidence about it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A. "a lot" and "a majority" are not the same. B. Implication is not enough RS have to say it explicitly, anything that is "inferred" (and that is what you do with something that is implied you infer what they really meant) would be OR.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like wikilawyering. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute the mainstream perspective? This a "yes" or "no" question. Geogene (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with MPants : "There is no significant RS view that the interference did not happen.". My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And how many of them actually say this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh channels the Iraq WMD thingy
Note Rush Limbaugh seems to be playing catch up with this article's talk page from last year, using the Iraq WMD thing to smear US Intelligence apparently duping the trusting but naive Dick Cheney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
 * Kind of nuts, lets see if anything happens with it. I didn't know you were a Rush subscriber. PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He's tops!<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would that be this naive and trusting Dick Cheney? Or this naive and trusting Dick Cheney? --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Dick that some editors here said was duped by the same dark state intelligence community that duped us in the JAR attributing election interference to the Russians. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, guys. Stop dissing Darth Cheney. It's not nice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the Dick Hey, watch your language! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh merciful Santa Lucia. Blushing grandma here 😳. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Since it is obvious that it has been no Russian interference, this article should be either renamed or deleted
The whole theory of Russian interference has been based on the supposed proof that the intelligence community had. No actual proof has ever been presented. Now that the intelligence community has been demonstrated to be affected by corruption there is no reason to believe that there has ever been any Russian interference. This makes this article bogus. I suggest to either rename it into Conspiracy theories about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, or delete it altogether. Yurivict (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Wiki articles have to be believable. For example, the readers of the article quantum mechanics can expect that it describes the state of quantum mechanics accurately, present the best information available about it. This current article doesn't describe its subject accurately, since there is no reason to believe that there has ever been any Russian interference. Yurivict (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your personal opinion, but Wikipedia summarizes what the range of sources say, and does not include individual editor's opinions. So, we must summarize the full range of reliable sources, including those that disagree with your personal point of view. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Showing up to an article's talk page and proclaiming loudly "WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT!" is not a constructive use of the talk page - it violates WP:TALK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Has this been shown, where?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Citation repair request
In the "Social media and internet trolls" section, please replace the missing citation with thanks, 209.6.209.51 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Geogene (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker sourced in the Russian reaction section
This particular locus being edited today, is an example of fluff that's really only bloating the article. Not every anonymous member of the Duma is significant enough to be mentioned as an individual opinion, especially when it seems to be a typical one in Russia. What that source would be useful for instead is summarizing what it says is a common perspective in Russia: they deny the hacking, while claiming moral justification for something they insist they didn't do. The fact that they perceive American conspiracies throughout their own recent politics would give more useful background as far as establishing motive. Geogene (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI interested editors RE: 2018 elections
Please see Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections and its AfD. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Schiff: "Ample Evidence" of Collusion
Schiff: "Ample Evidence" of Collusion

NOTE. Do NOT use that as a RS, but look at the RS it uses. They are totally fair game. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For what?Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

NOTE - Use the original sources: Guardian  and USA Today  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Indictment of 13 Russian operatives
Outlined a few points: --DHeyward (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No Americans were aware they were working for Russians.
 * Russians worked to undermine confidence in American election system and worked to sow discord by organizing rallies to both support and oppose Trump after the election including supporting both Pro and Anti Trump rallies in NYC.
 * No evidence that the influence altered the election.
 * That's not what I'm reading in the (reliable) sources. I guess those would be good points for the defense?- MrX 🖋 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -->Hey, So? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

no allegation that ANY American had ANY knowledge of the Russian's intent of interfering with the elections, and no evidence that the Russian interference affected the OUTCOME of the election174.85.12.247 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The indictment charges, for instance, that Russians paid an American woman in Florida to dress up as Hillary Clinton in a prison uniform, and paid another American to build a cage large enough to hold her." - MrX 🖋 19:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We should focus on including information about what the indictment claims *did* happen, not on synthesis to make bold statements that things not included in the indictment did not happen. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The indictment is a formal instrument that fits a certain legal structure. There may be a lot of factual information disclosed during the course of the trials, but we as editors should confine our work to what's known and reported. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay from the indictment. Friday’s indictment filing – signed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller – says the defendants organized a Nov. 12 “Trump is NOT my President” rally in New York. On that same day, according to indictment, they also organized a “show your support for President-elect Donald Trump" rally in New York. The indictment also revealed that the Russians organized a “Charlotte Against Trump” rally in North Carolina on Nov. 19. The indictment is the Occam's Razor of interference: Russians were aiming to disrupt and targeted the favorites and elects.  They intended to sow discord.  This is the piece missing and it's notable that as soon as Trump won they continued to sow discord and division with unwitting support.  It seems many activists were duped from every side.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about interference in the election, not after it. Geogene (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I hope you'll join the rest of us in working on the article Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's covering Mueller investigation and even indictments unrelated to the election. Manafort's indictment is unrelated. Also, the election didn't complete until mid-December 2016 when the electoral college met. "Not My President" is featured prominently in the effort to convince electors to vote as part of the 2016 election..  The Washington Post caption says Demonstrators protest against President-elect Donald Trump in front of Trump Tower on Nov. 12. Trump opponents are urging some electors to switch their votes and not back Trump when the electoral college meets on Dec. 19. and the Nov 12 anti-Trump rally in NYC is the one supported by Russian operatives according to the indictment.  And "no allegation that ANY American had ANY knowledge of the Russian's intent of interfering with the elections, and no evidence that the Russian interference affected the OUTCOME of the election" and not sure what sock that was but the point is legitimate summary of parts of the indictment. --DHeyward (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In what world are you living that Manafort's indictment is unrelated? Go read it. It is dripping with detail about his connections with Russian interests. Moreover, he was the campaign manager. But hell, don't take my word for it. Go read WP:RSes on it. :)Casprings (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your world. i'm glad we agree that this article cvers more than just activities between when trump entered the election an election day, 2016.  Some were trying to argue that e indictment of Manafort shouldn't be in the article because it was unrelated to the election.  Welcome aboard.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a decent article that hits what WP:RSes see as important from today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russia-mueller-election.html

I think the two areas the article is lacking is: 1. We have to add that they were attempting to damage Clinton by not only supporting Trump, but also Sanders and Stein. This needs more WP:WEIGHT. 2. They were organizing and funding organizations in the US. This includes Trump rallies. 3. They targeted minority groups with messages meant to suppress turnout. Casprings (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I think something like is how we should start the article. First, with today we can drop the US intel part. WP:RS are treating as fact. We should just state it also. Second, we should mention what the purpose was.Casprings (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are more and the biggest piece is not that they were just opposing Clinton (that's been covered plenty). The aspect covered by virtually all RSs is the goal was to destabilize the election by generally supporting the underdog and "sow discord." Even past election day, they sowed discord in the results. Ultimately, the support for Trump appears to be driven by the desire to cause conflict rather than any ideological preference for Trump. That aspect should shift the article from "Helping Trump" to "Sowing discord and discontent" as that is what the indictment and reliable sources are reporting. Helping Trump should no longer be the underlying theme but disrupting and interfering in the election was the goal. It started before Trump enteredt the race and continues past election day. The article should reflect that "helping Trump" was the end goal. --DHeyward (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. They wanted to oppose Clinton. However, there is also plenty of evidence that, especially by the end of the Campaign, they supported Trump. Moreover, these are not exclusive goals. One can want to sow chaos, oppose Clinton, and prefer Trump all at the same time.Casprings (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources support "sowing discord" as one motivation. They don't support moving the article away from the Kremlin's opposition to Clinton as a candidate, and I don't see the justification for that. Geogene (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. We should also add the support of Stein to help Trump and Hurt Clinton by reducing the votes for Clinton.Casprings (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018
To be fair to readers of this article, we should also include historical perspective of Russian meddling in US elections. If someone reads this article it gives the impression that it's a latest phenomena and happening for the first time. Below are some references to what I am suggesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention https://www.belfercenter.org/node/89086 http://www.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/how-russia-exported-political-technology-to-america.html http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/14/ted-kennedy-made-secret-overtures-to-russia-to-prevent-ronald-reagans-re-election/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/russia-dnc-hack-donald-trump-foreign-governments-hacking-vietnam-richard-nixon-214111 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/cold-war-russia-putin-reagan-trump/535728/ Temburni (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ - Edit requests must include a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. - MrX 🖋 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

can you get this article: Draft:Dov Levin (Professor) out of draft?
Can someone please help me get this article out of draft? Thank you. Flylikeaseagull (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It would probably help if you could add some (independent, reliable) biographical sources to the article. - MrX 🖋 14:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

New Section on Russian interference and its effect on the election
I think we need to have a section on the affect of the election. First, I think we coverage the fact that various Trump administration officials said that the IC said it didn't affect the election, only to be contradicted by the IC officials stating that is not what they found. They made no determination on rather it effected the outcome. Next, I think we need to provide reasons for the reader why it is difficult to determine the effect on the election. With this, this article does a really good job of providing those reasons.

How Much Did Russian Interference Affect The 2016 Election?: It’s hard to say.

Clearly we need more then one RS and would have to find various RS to support these points, but this is a very good rundown why it is hard to find what affect the interference had. Thoughts? If editors are in agreement, I might start a draft for everyone to edit and eventually place in the article.Casprings (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Casprings, it's pretty much impossible to determine whether it affected the election, in part because people vote by secret ballot and we don't know why. There has been lots of speculation but nobody reliable has claimed to know. (Obviously the Trump folks are basing their statements only on what they wish to be true.) Funny you should mention FiveThirtyEight; that was the only source that claimed, based on actual data, that the Comey letter had thrown the election to Trump. But they do not claim to know how effective the Russian interference was, nor does anyone credible. So I don't really know what there is to say. MelanieN alt (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that this question will be studied by statisticians for the next 100+ years, but most RS do not currently have the data, expertise, or inclination to form a definitive opinion. Some of that reluctance could just be due to the inflammatory political overtones to any such determination. At any rate, I think we don't have sources to support that. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What you cover is WHY it is hard to know the affect. My point isn't that you should say it did or did not affect the election. My point is that you should tell the reader WHY it is hard to tell. However, if there is no desire, so be it.Casprings (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that ceteris paribus no Russians -> no Trump presidency. But then again, also no Comey letter, same effect. No pneumonia, no private email server, no Clinton Foundation money, same effect... There are dozens of factors which, had they not happened, would have changed the outcome. For this and other reasons, I have seen no credible "RS" willing to state that the Russians put Trump in office. So we don't have much basis for article content. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War
A great article of relevance here.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Feeling of finality of the February 16, 2018 indictments
Does this article need a "Current status" section or something? I think visitors would like to know if this set of indictments is it and sort of closes the case. Thoughts?

(I posted this same thing at Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–present))

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This absolutely does not suggest the investigation is close to closing. This batch of indictments deals with just one of the three aspects of the issue (three that we know of). This report is about the social media and other pretended identities like phony activist groups. It does not mention the hacking, which remains to be dealt with. It does not mention the known contacts (and probably others Muller knows about but we don't) between the Russians and members of the Trump campaign. That's at least two areas where the investigation is not close to closing. MelanieN alt (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi MelanieN alt. Interesting. Is that in the article? Forgive my laziness, but that thing is a huge monster. And what are your thoughts about a "Current status" section? News media gives the impression that this is it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The most reliable news media do not give that impression. These are still the low hanging fruit, and Mueller, as any good investigator does, picks them first. The fact that at least four of Trump's close associates are indicted indicates that there is much more to come. This places pressure on those above them. Trump would be the last, but, as in cases of this type, even if found guilty he may never face conviction. Men like him and Putin always work through middle men, and they take the fall. The fact that at least three of those indicted have turned states witness is bad news for Trump and others in his campaign. That is the "current status".
 * Watch The Rachel Maddow Show to stay ahead. She's like a teacher, slow and thorough. She has an excellent team who fact check everything, have the best guests, and are nearly always right. What they tell about are the biggest headlines in a couple days. They are always ahead of the curve. That's how to stay on top of this. She connects the dots using reliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi BullRangifer. Fair enough. So what about a "Current status" section for visitors? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not over; a new phase is already underway: The counter investigation into illegal spying on Trump and his campaign, the FBI and DOJ bias against him are ongoing and will be the subject of Inspector General Howowitz's report in March. Michael Flynn's judge had to recuse himself, presumably because he was the one who signed FISA warrants based on the fake dossier. Numerous sources said almost nothing in the dossier has been verified and it admittedly used Russian sources. Comey testified that FBI agents didn't believe Flynn lied but after Comey was fired, Trump hater Strzok took over. McCabe supposedly said in a meeting "Fuck Flynn and then we fuck Trump". Then there's Bruce Ohr who has some explaining to do about not disclosing that his wife worked for Fusion GSP. Stay tuned for some real fireworks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD24:B470:20B8:2974:C342:CFDF (talk • contribs)


 * So what do you think about a "Current status" section? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for patiently returning to your original proposal. I'm not so sure about "current status" although it is an interesting and thoughtful suggestion. Words like "current" are usually discouraged here, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper. We could say "as of February 2018", I suppose. Rather than a section I think I would prefer a summary paragraph in the lede: "As of February 2018 the investigation has produced three guilty pleas, with the defendants publicly agreeing to cooperate with Mueller's team, as well indictments of two former Trump campaign officials and multiple Russian citizens. Mueller is believed to be looking into additional aspects of the Russian interference as well as possible financial crimes and possible obstruction of justice." That's a quick take off the top of my head. Do we have sources that would say it better? MelanieN alt (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * P. S. I have not seen any news media suggesting that this wraps it up. The only ones trying to give that impression are Trump and his people. MelanieN alt (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The article should be written from a historical perspective as is commonly done in an encyclopedia, so I don't think that a current status section would be appropriate. The recent indictment does not close the case. First of all, there are arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing yet to occur. Secondly, the Senate and House investigations are still ongoing as far as I know. Also, according to the sources I read in the past couple of days, there is a pretty good chance that more indictments will be issued.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we write in a tone that is historical.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Easier said than done on such a polarising issue in the USA, where it is difficult to even reach agreement on what is factual. Now we have signs of 2018 interference has already started and this will get emotions going again.  Not an easy task.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

One quick note on the "current status" and "is it ongoing" questions - you don't offer plea bargains and then don't roll the case up higher up. There'd be no reason for Mueller to offer plea bargains to Papadapolous and Flynn (and Gates?) if he didn't get something in return. And we haven't seen what that something is yet. There's sources for this but since it's not going to go into the article I'm too lazy to link'em right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Committee to Investigate Russia
This organization's website is a treasure trove of information and RS, and we can use those sources. The Advisory Board is quite distinguished:

Advisory Board


 * Max Boot Military Historian and Foreign Policy Analyst
 * James Clapper Former Director of National Intelligence
 * Evelyn Farkas, Ph.D. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia
 * General Michael Hayden Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency
 * Jeh Johnson Former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security
 * Michael Morell Former Acting Director of the CIA
 * Norman Ornstein American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar
 * Leon Panetta Former Secretary of Defense, Former Director of the CIA, and Former White House Chief of Staff
 * Rob Reiner Director, Actor, and Activist
 * Charles Sykes Conservative Commentator
 * Clint Watts Foreign Policy Research Institute Fellow and Former FBI Agent

Committee to Investigate Russia. Check it out. You may find useful content from the RS it mentions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * From the names on the board, looks very partisan: a gallery of certified anti-Trumpers. — JFG talk 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A very astute observation. It sorta makes sense. There are those who really know what's going on (Team America: several with top security clearance and experience, using RS), and those who are allied in their public denials because they are on the same team (Team Russia: Putin, Trump, GOP, using poor sources). The latter are under criminal investigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Anti-Trumper" is just name-calling and debases the organization and its principals -- as if they had no civic motive in providing this platform for public access. More significantly, it's not a useful comment for WP editors to hang their hats on. An external link to this very useful website was suppressed shortly after the organization was formed and IMO should now -- with their track record of well-sourced content -- be restored to this article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This website should at least be added to the list of external links. I'm not sure it could be used as a reliable source though.- MrX 🖋 22:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support adding as an external link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes to EL, and use the RS it uses as references. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "debasing" about calling these people "anti-Trumpers": they are proud of the label. They are probably very sincere about their sacred duty to protect the nation from Russian-orchestrated regime change personified by Donald Trump. Good for them, but that does make them a partisan source. — JFG talk 22:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's even worse to deny the insult that label conveys. Anyway, the label isn't going in the article and it's pointless to repeat it here. Calling it "partisan" is simply incorrect. Check the definition of partisan, and perhaps you can find a word that better conveys whatever concern you're trying to express. They're not partisan. "They" are professionals and well-informed people who hold a certain view. They are collaborating to publish their website. That's no more partisan than the Boston Red Sox are partisan because they're a select group that collaborate. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Having an opinion is okay, and we do use partisan sources here, both those which are for and against Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

New WaPo piece on Facebook/Twitter roles and some self-serving narratives
This relates to our several discussions that we keep in mind the commercial interests and possible legal jeopardy of social media sites when we consider using their own statements as sources for article content. See here <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Points worthy of consideration for including
"Now, The Reckoning Comes" - The Media-Created Russia-Collusion Story Collapses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD24:B470:BD9E:AA2C:DC74:2B86 (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ZeroHedge is not a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When they quote reliable sources they are Xerton (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Geogene (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not ZeroHedge, but a column from the Federalist republished by them. But it still fails rs, per WP:NEWSORG as an opinion piece.  TFD (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, TFD, it's still not a good source. There comes a point at which partisanship and spin twists and distorts truth. Take a look at this very popular chart. Yes, it's not a RS here....yet, but it's very carefully researched and pretty good. See the placement of the Federalist. ZeroHedge didn't even make it, it's that bad.
 * The chart shows the intricate relationship between opinions and facts, and how partisanship affects them. The more one allows opinions to dominate facts, the further away from the center and the top one moves. That's why Fox News rates both low and extreme. Even sources like CNN, where analysis isn't as high as some others, still remain fairly close to center. Note the colored boxes. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

wheres the section?
where's the section about russian collusion with the clinton campaign and the dnc via the steele dossier?עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do any RS make this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Jdcomix (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

עם ישראל חי, you'll find that in the same place where RS make that type of connection....IOW not at Wikipedia. Only fringe sources make such claims, IOW the types of sources used by Trump and disruptive editors here. I'm not calling you that, but those who do create disruption on these subjects inevitably use unreliable sources.

Here are a few unreliable ones: Reason, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, New York Post, The American Conservative, The Federalist, OAN, Drudge Report, Fox News, The Daily Wire, The Daily Caller, Newsmax, RedState, TheBlaze, Conservative Tribune, Breitbart News, InfoWars, The Gateway Pundit, Zero Hedge (Russian government disinformation), RT (Russian government disinformation), Sputnik (Russian government disinformation)

There is indeed an indirect connection between Clinton and the dossier, in that the DNC and Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump, right after Republicans had done the same. Then Fusion GPS hired Orbis (Steele), the top Russia expert, to do that research, but Steele was not told the identity of the client. As far as he knew, he was working for Fusion GPS. So there was no collusion between Clinton and Russia. On the contrary, Putin helped Trump win because he both feared and hated Clinton. There is no love lost between those two, unlike the Putin/Trump mutual admiration society.

You can also find more info in other articles here:


 * Trump–Russia dossier
 * Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
 * Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
 * Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)

You could also ask several members of the Trump campaign and administration who have been convicted or been indicted as a result of the investigation. Several have confessed and are working with Mueller and against Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * so a reliable source would be the ny times, washington post, cnn, and any other anti trump news site?
 * no ones been convicted at all and no one has been indicted for collusion and no one has confessed to colluding. עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're wasting everyone's time here if you deny the validity of mainstream news sources. That's just not the way Wikipedia works so please don't repeat those concerns on an article talk page. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * so the The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, New York Post,Fox News are not mainstream only liberal news is mainstream?עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fox News is sometimes reliable; the others, not so much. If you have a specific edit proposal, please make it (with sources). This page is not for general discussions about editor's perceptions about whether sources are liberal or otherwise.- MrX 🖋 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * what makes them not reliable and fox news sometimes reliable? and why are the ny times, washington post, cnn, considered always reliable? isn't that pov bias ? עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with perceived bias. It has to do with a reputation for fact checking and error correction. WP:RSN is where this is discussed, not article talk pages. O3000 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Primary source RE: Russian interference
Worth a look, because it's kind of hard to believe -- the bit near the end "Russians? Bullshit. They were all Trump supporters." . <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Downer
Alexander Downer has received quite a lot of publicity since the NYT article on his meeting with George Papadopoulos. It should at lest be mentioned that he has ties to the Clinton Foundation.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs)


 * Phmoreno, you really need to limit your sourcing to RS.


 * You use these unreliable sources above:


 * https://australiannationalreview.com
 * https://www.zerohedge.com
 * https://www.lifezette.com
 * https://thepoliticalinsider.com
 * https://www.libertyheadlines.com
 * http://yournewswire.com
 * http://theduran.com
 * http://thegatewaypundit.com
 * https://www.usapoliticstoday.org


 * These are the ONLY sources above which are usually considered RS:


 * https://www.nytimes.com
 * https://www.theaustralian.com.au


 * What kind of ties did Downer have to the Clinton Foundation? In what possible way would that be negative? It's an honorable organization, only vilified by extremist right-wing sources.
 * Finally, what would any of that have to do with Russian interference in the election, which was directed at helping Trump and harming Clinton?
 * BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, Papadopoulos, not Clinton or Downer, has been convicted of lying, and he was a foreign policy adviser for Trump, sitting in on Trump administration meetings which require top security clearance, without having it. What kind of circus are they running there? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Australasia is not in Russia yet.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Report by Felshtinskiy
There was an interesting interview (English) on the subject of the page by Russian historian Yuri Felshtinsky given to Dmitry Gordon. It can be probably used here as a source... My very best wishes (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Understanding Russian inteference
I recentely attended a lecture by a scholar on Russia who summarized Russia's present strategy. I found it almost identical to what high level KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov described in the 1980s. I urge everyone to see this.Phmoreno (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe this is not the first time you've posted videos by fringe conspiracy theorist Bezmenov. It can't be used as a source for Wikipedia, and it doesn't belong on this talk page. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a fringe theory according to the Russian expert whose lecture I attended. She quoted a top military commander. The general in effect said they find it far less expensive to use subversion than spending huge amounts on the military.  Besides, you need to reconcile your argument about fringe conspiracy against the fact that Russians were just indicted for doing this same sort of thing.  If this article is really about Russian interference in the elections and not just about smearing Trump, then explain it to the readers.Phmoreno (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It can't be used as a source for Wikipedia, and it doesn't belong on this talk page. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yuri Bezmenov


 * You can see some of the same thinking expressed by Bexmenov in Valery Gerasimov's 2013 speech:
 * "And the 'rules of war' themselves have changed significantly. The role of non-military methods in achieving political and strategic goals has increased, which in some cases, by their effectiveness, far surpassed the strength of weapons. The emphasis of the methods of confrontation used is shifting towards broad application of political, economic, information, humanitarian and other non-military measures implemented with the use of the protest potential of the population. Gerasimov Valery"
 * Phmoreno (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

New NRA-related articles
Editors here may be interested in contributing to Paul Erickson (activist), or perhaps starting a closely related page, Maria Butina. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And on a related note, editors here may want to consider putting the NRA money funneling investigation stuff into the broader context of Russia's infiltration of the NRA. The Erickson article's refs would be very useful for that. Here's a brand new NPR article on the same subject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Claims by Anastasia Vashukevich
What do people think about this newly added paragraph? It is sourced to the New York Times, which lends it some magnitude, but there's no evidence that she actually has what she claims she has, and an imprisoned person trying to avoid criminal charges is not usually the most credible source. I'm inclined to think we should not mention it unless we have a little stronger indication that there actually is something there. What do others think? Pinging Soibangla who added it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. Whatever anyone thinks of her or her motives (Navalny, for one, isn’t a fan), just the fact that Navalny’s video on her and the Norwegian yacht outing of Deripaska, and - allegedly (yeah, looks like him) - Russian Deputy Prime Minister Prikhodko resulted in the Russian government blocking Navalny’s website and threatening to block Youtube and Instagram entirely (Guardian, Vox) makes a pretty convincing case that there’s something there. And Deripaska is suing her for "maliciously [making] his private photos and personal information public" (CNN). I’m still trying to find out whether Youtube and Instagram caved or not and, if so, what happened next. Meanwhile, for anyone who’s interested, here’s the link to Navalny’s video with subtitles. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say that we give it rather minimal attention, but that we should definitely mention it. Not because it's particularly credible (I don't believe it is, I think that it's just the usual anti-Trump sentiment pervading the media that makes it seem more credible), but because it's widely covered. As for expanding it; we should keep an eye on the sources and possibly aggregate some of the better ones. At some point, somebody is going to find out that she has or doesn't have that material. Once that's known, then as long as the media doesn't ignore it, we'll have enough for a coherent narrative about her involvement in this topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's weird enough that it should be left out for now. Geogene (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Feels a little odd to have a section larger than 2018 indictments for this. But it is well sourced and covered, an odd situation all around. Gut feeling is nothing will come of it but I did read somewhere recently that CNN sent someone over to talk to her, because of course they did. Sounds like a small mention until we find out if she actually knows anything or if it ends like the Schiff prank call. PackMecEng (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Five bucks says her "evidence" turns out to be either a voice recording of her talking to one of her friends about fucking Trump, or a video of her accusing some Russian government type of being involved with Trump and them not explicitly denying it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

House Intelligence Committee finds no evidence of collusion. Very important for the entire article.
The opening paragraph of this "reference article" quotes the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, but not the findings of the House Intelligence Committee, which are that there were people in the Russian government trying to influence the election, but there is no evidence of them working in collusion with the Trump campaign. This is an important finding from a major government investigation, much moreso than the ODNI. and is important for people to understand the nature of the situation, including contradicting many people's beliefs about the situation. If you want to quote the ODNI to establish one aspect of it in the opening paragraph, the proper procedure is to also forefront the findings of the House Intelligence investigation. 24.184.166.109 (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The whitewash by Nunes and his Republicans on the committee probably should be mentioned in the article, in proper context, but it certainly does not belong in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, this is not important enough to put in the lead until such a time as there are criminal convictions or impeachment.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

it is already in the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections last paragraph. Whether in should be in the lead I am not sure. It certainly is significant, but the coverage of it was dropped quickly for some reason... It is one of the only official investigations to conclude and start stating it's findings. PackMecEng (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's early to mention it because there are going to be competing Republican and Democratic versions of its conclusions. And the mention should include Rooney's 'we have lost all credibility' remarks . Putting this on an equal tier with ODNI is a non-starter. Geogene (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If and when the Democrats release their own version of events from the committee we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now, this is the only release from house intelligence committee. PackMecEng (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Republicans haven't officially released anything either. . Geogene (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

These things (the Republican report and the Democratic memo) can and should be in the text. Not meaningful enough for the lede. And let's not overstate what this announcement was: It wasn't "the findings of the House Intelligence Committee". It wasn't "an important finding from a major government investigation". It was a unilateral report from the Republican leadership of the committee, sprung on the other members of the committee without their having any input or even knowledge that a report was being written; they weren't even told that the investigation was being closed. This was in no sense a report of the findings of the committee, because most of the committee had nothing to do with it. That's in contrast to the ODNI report which was based on a consensus of the reporting agencies. We should report the closure of the House investigation, but we should treat the report, and its Democratic response (including the fact that they plan to continue investigating), as part of the partisan spin on the Russian interference, not as meaningful information. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the material in the article text. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are myriad reasons why the "investigation" is partisan, biased, and far from complete. The GOP found no collusion because they refused to look where it was hiding in plain sight.
 * They allowed suspects to dictate the terms and scope of the investigation, and allowed Nunes, a suspect, to control it and have access to classified info. Yes, it must be mentioned in the body, but it's far too compromised to be lede worthy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a lot of OR there. But yes it is partisan, as everything in the Trump/Russian field is. What do you mean Nunes is a suspect? PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything is partisan? You didn't really mean to say that, did you? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I am exaggerating a bit there with everything. Not everything is partisan in Trump/Russia subjects. But I do think it is fair to say most is. PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everything. For one thing, up to now the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to be operating in a nonpartisan manner. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True so far they seem pretty good on it, I would like to see how the Senate committee turns out. I would also like to actually sit down and read the House version when it is released from both sides as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nunes, on the other hand, has been not just a partisan; he has been an active agent of the White House, operating at their direction in several instances - like his part in that ridiculous sham where the White House gave him information and he then "gave" it back to the White House as a way of releasing it. Also, when he came out with the "Nunes memo", he refused to answer when asked if the White House had a role in producing it. Everything that comes from Nunes should be regarded as tainted. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying everything is partisan or even that most things are partisan is kind of like the Trump talking point that the US economy is in ruins even when you can drive 3 miles and get any imaginable food or consumer item ready to take home and enjoy with your healthy family and pets. There is nothing partisan about peoples' behavior, and there's nothing partisan about the Special Counsel investigation, the FBI, or even the Dept. of Justice. In fact that's one of POTUS big sorrows, that the US Government is not partisan. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait Nunes is a partisan but Schiff is not? Even more to the fact other than Republicans no one is? That is absolutely stunning from many angles. PackMecEng (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Schiff hasn't done anything inappropriate over the course of the House Intelligence Committee investigation. Nunes has. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (EC) I didn't say Schiff was not, quite the contrary. In fact I said we should treat the report, and its Democratic response (including the fact that they plan to continue investigating), as part of the partisan spin on the Russian interference, not as meaningful information.. But my point here was, Nunes is unique. He is more than just a partisan; he is an active agent of the White House. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that he, as chair of the committee, has repeatedly been guilty of freezing out the minority members (and even many of the Republican members), unilaterally taking action in the name of the committee without a vote or any input at all from the other members, without even informing them he is about to do so. Even in today’s hyperpartisan atmosphere, that kind of behavior on a congressional committee is unusual to say the least. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, thank you for the clarification. I can agree with that then! PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

New reference on collusion
Here: Facebook data misused to target voters.  <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions by the Trump Administration
Should information about he new sanctions recently imposed by the Trump Administration be added to this article? Devin.richard.97 (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think so because they were unrelated to alleged Russian interference in the U.S. elections. TFD (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

L'Affaire Russe
There is an incoming redirect from the term L'Affaire Russe. Reviewing it at WP:NPP I nominated it for deletion as there was no mention of the term in the article, and it has been used in other historical contexts, albeit mostly in French language sources. The discussion was closed as "no consensus", ie "keep", so I have added a single sentence, with a source, under "Commentary and reactions: Public opinion". If that isn't the best place, please move it, but I believe that there should be some mention of the term somewhere in the article, with a source, to justify the redirect. Thanks. Pam D  09:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this, there's really not much support or usage of this out there. Russian interference in US elections has nothing to do with France, so them using the phrase "the Russian affair" in the course of their routine news coverage is just that, routine, not a proper title or term. It's not a widely-used meme or neologism in American press, i.e. funny thing like where people add "la" or "el" in front of an English word and say "I'm speaking Spanish!", all I can find is a throwaway mention in Wired, the headline in Slate, and a law blog. I would be against the inclusion of it in this article, a bad decision in a redirect discussion is not a mandate for editors elsewhere. ValarianB (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cute title by a blog does not a notable phrase make. Seeing no widespread usage in English-language sources, the redirect should be deleted per WP:RFOREIGN. Somebody should re-nominate it. — JFG talk 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think people were arguing that it was a term used in American, not French, reporting. But if someone would like to re-nominate the redirect for deletion I'd be delighted. I've learned something: if nominating for deletion what seems an unreasonable redirect it might be useful to mention it neutrally on talk page of target article, where the subject experts will be lurking. Thanks. Pam  D  12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that it has been renominated at RfD.  Pam  D  18:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Updating the opening of the lede
Copying Casprings' proposed edit to the lede based on Feb 16 indictments of 13 Russians for interference in 2016 US elections.

I think something like this is how we should start the article. First, with today we can drop the US intel part. WP:RS are treating as fact. We should just state it also. Second, we should mention what the purpose was.Casprings (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, suggests to replace the first sentence of the lead with:

Comments welcome. — JFG talk 14:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this edit okay?Casprings (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks fair to me. — JFG talk 14:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.- MrX 🖋 15:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Better (several tweaks):
 * I was recently invited to comment here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi SPECIFICO. Thank you for responding. I'm the person who invited you. My comments are at the bottom of this section. selfworm <small style="color: #FDD017">Talk ) 14:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi SPECIFICO. Thank you for responding. I'm the person who invited you. My comments are at the bottom of this section. selfworm <small style="color: #FDD017">Talk ) 14:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment On the one hand, we now have a very detailed and convincing indictment. On the other hand, we do not have a conviction or admission of guilt from the Russians. If this is accepted, we should follow it with the pre-existing information about the National Intelligence Assessment. There might also be a few minor copy edits to the wording. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence afterwords should be, "The Russian government preferred the election of Donald Trump." We should be clear that was the preference of the Russian government. I would argue that WP:RS are treating the Russian interference as a fact and so should we.Casprings (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems ok. In a sense we bent over backwards to avoid stating the obvious for the past 12 months. I'm going to make a little copy edit. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no clear-cut evidence that "The Russian government preferred the election of Donald Trump." Opinions about that are all over the spectrum from "Trump is Putin's puppet" to "Russians don't give a shit", with current mainstream consensus rather along the lines of "Russia wants to undermine confidence in U.S. democracy." I would definitely not support stating the purported "preference" of the Russian government in Wikipedia's voice. — JFG talk 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Our standard here is not "clear-cut evidence", but the consensus of RS, and they overwhelmingly support the intelligence community's judgment (based on evidence, much of it unknown to us, for good reasons) that Russia interfered in the election and favored Trump. The interference was clearly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton, and the consensus is strong enough that we can indeed say it in Wikipedia's voice. OUR evidence is what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ageed. WP:RS support this statement in the article.Casprings (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No and no: RS consensus does support Russian interference in the election; it doesn't support Russian government preference for Trump. In fact, the very edit suggested by correctly notes Russian support for Sanders, Stein and Trump, and the indictments by Mueller document anti-Trump as well as pro-Trump interventions. Ergo, it's inconclusive and can't be put in wikivoice. — JFG talk 04:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We go with what the anti trump media makes up because we're not biased here we just hate Trump.עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we have rules and polices. Hell we even have charges now, Even Trumps own people admits there was Russian interference |Slatersteven] (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

My first post to Wikipedia so apologies if this entry is done incorrectly. The very title of this presumes facts not in evidence. The Jan. 7 DNI report states (Annex B, p.13) "Judgements are not intended to imply that we have proof that showssomething to be a fact." The use of "RS" above, which I understand to mean 'reliable source' should not apply to this information, as James Clapper is a known liar to Congressional oversight (sources available). Also, the absence of evidence renders the conclusion only a measure of the confirmation bias in the source. Lastly, Evidence of the Chinese hack into Sony was provided by the NSA so there is no reason for not providing it, hypothetically. Craiggggg (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors do not provide their own analysis of the sources, which is pretty much the entirety of your position. ValarianB (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Who is responsible for distinguishing fact from fiction if not the editors?Craiggggg (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We use reliable sources. See WP:IRS. Making claims like James Clapper is a known liar is a violation of biography of living persons. Please see WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Why default to subjective criteria like 'RS' as opposed to evidence and fact? At the very least the article should include the quotes from the NYT and the DNI report saying there is no evidence to support the conclusion. Thank you for the link to the criteria for 'RS'.Craiggggg (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Reuters, arguably one of the most respected news agencies in the world known for its Reuters, just recently used the terminology: "in the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election". If Wikipedia is supposed to take a Neutral Point of View, then shouldn't our standard of neutrality be no less than that of Reuters? selfworm <small style="color: #FDD017">Talk ) 23:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify for 2606:A000:4744:7B00:463:209:ABA1:1342, I oppose changing the lede to express certainty that Russia tried to influence the U.S. elections. Although I personally think that this is the case, Wikipedia is not a place for opinion pieces. The proposed changes mentioned above were apparently implemented without consensus and the lede, as it is written now, violates NPOV in my opinion. I explained why this is the case in my comment above. selfworm <small style="color: #FDD017">Talk ) 13:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "in order to increase political instability in the United States" is a retread of "They Hate Our Freedom". You can find the latter theory in many RS (and if they say anything contrary, they are automatically not RS by Wikipedia standards). Keith McClary (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that your concern is tangent to my concern. My concern is about how the rewriting of the article to express certainty about the allegations violates NPOV. It's not about the specific details of the allegations themselves. I think that it's best to deal with each issue individually (if that's possible) so perhaps you could start a discussion on your specific concerns in a new section? selfworm <small style="color: #FDD017">Talk ) 18:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So has consensus been reached on including this edit? selfworm <small style="color: #FDD017">Talk ) 19:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Oppose - it really does seem like leading reliable sources still use the wording "according to the CIA", etc. without necessarily stating it as a fact yet - this is the wording used by the BBC, and similar wording is used by Reuters, NYT, People's Daily, etc. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 18:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

2606:A000:4744:7B00:463:209:ABA1:1342 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[I don't understand where the bold fonts come from.] What are you opposing, and why is there separation between the lede discussion and the sources..and the bolded comment at the top, setting it apart from commments that follow? The layout is counter-intuitive and, in that sense, counterproductive. To all this apparent confusion I reject consensus.2606:A000:4744:7B00:463:209:ABA1:1342 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, modify the layout to facilitate this discussion. The distinction between the 'lede' and 'sources' is obscure. The central point to both, however, is that there is NO EVIDENCE, even according to the 'RS' cited in the current 'lede' formulation, but which also fails to mention this ADMITTED FACT (according to the 'RS's'). Thank you. 2606:A000:4744:7B00:7855:9B56:C3A4:E886 (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

hack by Russian intelligence officer
Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Adopting ODNI's POV
I don't think the opening sentence is encyclopedic.

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in order to increase political instability in the United States and to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign by bolstering the candidacies of Donald J. Trump, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein."

My understanding of WP:NPOV is that multiple points of view should be represented without editorial bias. The above sentence states US government conclusions, which have been "strongly denied" by the Russian government, as facts. This exhibits a pro-US/anti-Russian bias. I think we should change the sentence (and others like it in the article) to reflect who came to which conclusion rather than state the predominant English-language opinion as fact. Thundermaker (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been over this multiple times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we have. If the OP wants to start with some sources and propose specific wording, we can debate it, but vague generalizations and bare assertions will not change anything in the article.- MrX 🖋 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

US Media Role - Lack of Context and Historical Information
With the amount of printed text and television hours understandably dedicated to the topic of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections, many observers have pointed out the lack of general historical context from the US Media on this topic. A Wikipedia article titled Foreign Electoral Intervention states: "One study indicates that 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"". Clearly while no interference in any d19:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Ckohan (talk)emocratic process by an external country is ever justified, it would be an important contribution to the education of the listening audience to provide more of a historical context which may help prevent more of these actions by any country in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckohan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Ckohan (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Interested readers can read more at foreign electoral intervention. Including extensive historical background in this article would be irrelevant whataboutism. Neutralitytalk 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe there may be a confusion. I was not advocating for more extensive historical background in this Wikipedia article. I was just adding an important observation on the topic related to the role of the US Media in the whole analysis, which has missed putting this issue in more of a historical context by not including in their comments any reference to how the US and Russia (and previously the Soviet Union) have BOTH interfered in 117 elections all over the world in a 46 years period. That does NOT justify in any way the alleged Russian interference with the US election. Ckohan (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckohan (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out Talk page guidelines. Usually, our article talk pages are for raising specific concerns or proposals about the article itself, not for editors to give their own generalized observations or to comment on the role of the media. Neutralitytalk 04:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Those are egregioius examples. There are countless examples of foreign nationals assisting in political campaigns or donated money or mentioning who they prefer to win on social media, which in most cases is entirely legal.  Australians btw were accused by the FEC of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.  TFD (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

House investigation
Related to this edit - along the same lines I tried to add some info about the nature of the Cambridge Analytica testimony - which specifically referenced Russia - before the House Committee. This was reverted, first by someone just for sake of revenge (due to disputes elsehwere) and then again without any substantial reason. This info should be restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the content sourced to the NBC News where Adam Schiff describes the nature of the House Intelligence investigation should be restored. To a reader who hasn't been following the news recently, all the sudden talk about a Channel 4 News investigation into Cambridge Analytica could be really confusing, so that could probably be better summarized. FallingGravity 06:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That piece of Schiff does not belong to the article. That's just an example of partisan bickering about the investigation process when the focus should be on what the witnesses have testified. I would be more interested to see something about the contents of the testimony. I have not followed the Cambridge Analytica story closely, and hence would like to see someone draft a proposal before I can comment further. Any NPOV proposal should not rely on innuendo, and should say (a) what CA is specifically accused of, (2) what is the relevance to this article, and (c) what CA has denied. Politrukki (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since Schiff is a very notable member of the committee it very much belongs. And the relevance here is what the CEO of CA said about the House Intelligence Committee "investigation". Did you even read what you reverted? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which committee members are not notable and how is notability relevant to this discussion? Nix did not say in their testimony that the Republicans asked only three questions. Did you even read the source you cited? Politrukki (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please be civil and assume good faith. Page restrictions are very substantial. As are sanctions for violating them. I don't know why you have the privilege of ignoring consensus and civility restrictions. Politrukki (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny how first you demand that others assume good faith and act "civil" then you proceed to failing to assume good faith and making uncivil and unfounded accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As an impartial observer, I must agree that the Schiff bit belongs in the article. Nothing about this investigation was pre-ordained, so to say we should restrict ourselves to "the contents of the testimony" begs what's turned out to be the central fact about the House investigation, to wit: The "investigation" was directed by the Republican majority to go selective and sloppy, so that "the contents" is a biased sample of the facts. Schiff's comment on the process provides our readers context as to the bias. It's not bickering, it's essential knowledge for our readers. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Diffs or it didn't happen. Surely you can't deny reinstating challenged material without talk page consensus or being uncivil ("serial stalker and harasser", "for sake of revenge"), or spouting falsehoods ("without any substantial reason"). Politrukki (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your edit incorrectly stated "Cambridge Analytica [...] ran Donald Trump's digital campaign during the 2016 presidential election". According to sources existing at the time of your edit they had no relationship for much of the presidential election ("The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when [campaign members] decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica.") Neither did they run his primary election; that is a claim by CA's CEO which both of the articles you cite are careful to attribute and which your edit did not. So already before the end of the first sentence your edit has introduced two falsehoods.
 * More fundamentally I would like to know (with sources) how specifically CA is alleged to have interfered in the election on behalf of or in coordination with Russians. Numerous individuals in these multiple investigations have been asked whether they were involved in Russian interference and only a fraction are included in our article. If the question alone does not meet our bar for inclusion, Schiff simply encouraging his colleagues to ask it cannot.
 * I reverted your edit for these reasons, not as you claim "just for sake of revenge", which is your second violation of the explicit Civility Restriction in the last few days. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Behavioral accusations do not belong on the article talk page. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A thoughtful reading would have seen my complaint as a request for removal and wholly appropriate on the page from which removal is requested. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson
and I could use some eyes on the new article Paul Erickson, where we've run into a whole bunch of neutrality-related issues. This is an article about a South Dakota Republican operative who's received a lot of news coverage recently in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have thought someone here would be interested, but there haven't been any takers yet. We're having disagreements all over the article related to core policies, so we could really use some help. Or I might end up starting like 9 RfCs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018
change "Russian interference" in title to "Alleged russian interference"

change "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in order to increase political instability in the United States and to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign by bolstering the candidacies of Donald J. Trump, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein.[1][2][3]" to "It is claimed that ..."

The existing article has many assertions stated as if they were facts based on evidence. The evidence can be sited, but it needs to be critically discussed, for example, Trumps deals with Russian oligarchs do not necessary have anything to do with Putin. There is no perspective provided in pointing out the level of U.S. interference in elections in other countries, say Venezuela, or the level of interference in U.S. elections by other countries, say Israel. THIS ARTICLE IS VERY MISLEADING! I think is should be labeled as biased or taken down! Guthriemiller (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This has been discussed at length. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

facebook
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

And to think, less than a year ago some folks were taking facebook's statements at face value for WP content. Live and learn.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Look for lots more at Talk:Cambridge Analytica, section mentioning Project Alamo. See the BBC 4 min. video and have your mind blown. Not a conspiracy theory. Then see the RS. There was no "data breach". That's a deceptive cover story. Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Cambridge Analytica, worked hand-in-hand with the Trump campaign. This is history, revealed back then by the players. They bragged about it, on the record, to RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. We've had several talk page threads on half a dozen articles where some editors just could not believe that their Internet 2.0 rockstar techies act out of self-interest and cover their bums just the same as the big bad 20th Century whoevers they love to hate. Nothing from these internet platforms should get a free pass as RS about themselves. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

More from Washington Post - "facebook must come clean" <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably time for a new article - Facebook - Cambridge Analytica Scandal or Facebook Data Harvesting Scandal or something like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah looks like it should head that way soon. Might be enough to do it now even. PackMecEng (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a Cambridge Analytica/Russia connection. Look for Lukoil in this article:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump
 * Doesn't that make it on-topic here? Keith McClary (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article makes a weak, possible connection as it relates to election interference by Russia (and collusion). I think we need something a little more concrete before adding it.- MrX 🖋 12:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some RS are implying that the "interference" may have been done by CA "targeting teams" although I haven't yet seen any explicitly backing off from the "Russians" meme. Keith McClary (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

WP RS's are reporting links.


 * Cambridge was under scrutiny in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Wall Street Journal. Other sources report that Mueller is looking into rather Trump's digital team worked with Russia. McClatchy and Vanity Fair
 * Aleksandr Kogan,who got the facebook data, is a Russian-American academic at Cambridge University.He is an associate professor at St. Petersburg University and got a grant from the Russian government to research social networks.New York Times and the The Guardian.
 * Cambridge tried to land business from the Russian oil and gas company Lukoil. New York Times
 * Days after WikiLeaks began posting the DNC emails and at the height of the 2016 campaign, Nix was photographed on a polo field with the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom. Mother Jones

As such, I think Cambridge and Trump's data team deserves a section in the Article.Casprings (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Mueller investigation stuff is definitely relevant for this article, though it might fit better in the Special Counsel article. The other stuff seems more relevant for the "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials" article (companies can be associates too). For example, a photo of Nix with a Russian ambassador taken 5 days after the DNC email leak doesn't necessarily mean he somehow participated in publishing those emails, though it does provide a link between the company's former CEO and the Russian official. FallingGravity 07:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/opinion/facebook-privacy-zuckerberg-society.html <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * More facebook

Requesting citation edit.
This passage appears in the third paragraph:

"On December 29, 2016, the Obama Administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals. More sanctions were imposed against Russia by the Trump administration in March 2018,[19][20]..."

What is confusing is the placement of the [19] and [20] citations superscripts. Citation [20] is an article from 2016 about sanctions issued by Obama. Citation [19] is an article from 2018 about sanctions issued by Trump. However the sentence that both citations are attached to reference Trump sanctions. I'd like to recommend a two-part edit.

Part 1: Switch the order of the citations. 1.1 Instead of what is currently there (050118 3:11pm):

[19]. ^Liptak, Kevin (15 March 2018). "Trump administration finally announces Russia sanctions over election meddling". CNN.

[20]. ^Lee, Carol E.; Sonne, Paul (December 30, 2016). "U.S. Sanctions Russia Over Election Hacking; Moscow Threatens to Retaliate". The Wall Street Journal.

1.2 The order should be:

[19]. ^Lee, Carol E.; Sonne, Paul (December 30, 2016). "U.S. Sanctions Russia Over Election Hacking; Moscow Threatens to Retaliate". The Wall Street Journal.

[20]. ^Liptak, Kevin (15 March 2018). "Trump administration finally announces Russia sanctions over election meddling". CNN.

Part 2: Move the NEW citation [19] to earlier in the passage

2.1 The new passage should look like this:

"On December 29, 2016, the Obama Administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals.[19] More sanctions were imposed against Russia by the Trump administration in March 2018,[20]..."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickatpolicyux (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2012 United States elections
If there was Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections I guess there likely was also Russian interference in the 2012 United States elections. And 2008 and ... Any intelligence on this? Shai-Huludim (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Shai
 * This page is not a forum to discuss the subject matter or speculative claims; we should focus on discussing improvements to the article. If you have sources noting Russian interference in prior elections, please feel free to suggest relevant text, and editors will gladly work with you. — JFG talk 19:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, Russia did interfere with the 2016 election, there has been evidence produced and indictments stemming from it. There is also evidence that "FancyBear" was involved in the hacking of the DNC. About the house subcommittee's findings, it has been proven that Russia favored Trump; also the GOP did not pursue the most obvious leads where there could have been collusion, therefore their conclusions are dubious. May I also remind you all that there are still at least 2 ongoing investigations still. The collusion hasn't yet been proven, true, but Russia DID interfere. Persistent Corvid (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

So, to put it simply, your reasoning behind desperately maintaining a manufactured narrative that's been continuously proven untrue is the partisan belief that it has to be true and that it *will* be proven true. Not now, not tomorrow, but in some nebulous future time (yet to be determined, see local schedules) everything will fall exactly where you want it to. Until that point, however, you and your fellow travelers maintain these pages in a manner that is not neutral nor unbiased, but slanted to reflect your worldview in the belief that your worldview must me right. That's circular reasoning, as are most of the citations from "reliable (i.e. ideologically compatible) sources", which report only the same thing: "There is no proof at all of collusion between the Russians and Trump, that there is further no proof that any actions taken by Russia interfered with the outcome of the election, but of course we know that it's there so stay tuned and/or stay subscribed.". This claim is then suitable (to those such as yourself) as a Wikipedia reference towards there being collusion with Russia, because the paper said there had to be. Then you update the page with more "evidence" of your belief, codifying it as fact, and the cycle starts all over again. That you can't, or consciously won't, recognize that, am sorry.
 * This page is not a forum to discuss the subject matter or speculative claims; we should focus on discussing improvements to the article. If you have sources noting Russian interference in prior elections, please feel free to suggest relevant text, and editors will gladly work with you.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This IP, 107.77.210.197 changed this talk page section by removing all other comments, except mine for whatever reason I  guess to deride me and others that agree  what I said are the facts, and changed the heading. Persistent Corvid (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The original poster of this section is correct. The patterns of emphasis and de-emphasis in this article and others have a clear bias which has been pointed out on multiple occasions by me and others, has never received any decent reply, and continues. For yet another example, the statement that the "collusion hasn't been proven" above is an acknowledgement of a crucial bit of information on this situation, since the investigation as is implies criminal activity by the President of the United States. The complete lack of evidence there should be in the first paragraph. Which is of course completely de-emphasized in the article to the point that you can barely even find a statement to that effect. 96.225.22.33 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 indictments

 * But on Wednesday, one of them, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, dispatched a pair of lawyers to federal court in Washington to plead not guilty to the charges. One of the lawyers, Eric Dubelier, said Concord would "exercise our right to a speedy trial."
 * Mueller's office said in a court filing last week that Concord's lawyers had already demanded that prosecutors turn over "sensitive intelligence gathering, national security, and foreign affairs information," including details on electronic surveillance of the company and its employees.
 * Partly in light of those demands, prosecutors asked the court to put off Concord's arraignment. U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the request without explanation.
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/09/concord-management-arraignment-russia-investigation/594454002/
 * Keith McClary (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial"
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Expressions_of_doubt
 * Keith McClary (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We're not going to start sowing "alleged" throughout the article, in order to imply doubt that Russia per se interfered in the election, simply because some specific Russia-related corporations and/or individuals have now been brought up on charges and presumably are entitled to a presumption of innocence. If that's what you're getting at--and you are not at all being clear about what you are trying to get at--that would be ridiculous. Geogene (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No hurry. The defendants have said they are claiming their rights under the Speedy Trial Act, which requires the trial to start July 18, 2018, but there are exemptions which will allow Mueller to delay it for at least a year. Keith McClary (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Should the trial go under the "2018 indictments" section or elsewhere? There are already some notable developments. For example:
 * The Concord lawyers complain "that the government hadn’t responded to or even acknowledged more than 70 discovery requests he made last month. Instead, prosecutors have offered a massive quantity of social media data ... in Russian, but they had no translations."
 * Concord’s argument is that Mueller failed to include a necessary knowledge requirement in count one of the indictment against Concord Management and other Russian entities and therefore, may need to be dismissed.
 * “[T]he DOJ never brought any case like the instant Indictment, that is, an alleged conspiracy by a foreign corporation to ‘interfere’ in a Presidential election by allegedly funding free speech. The obvious reason for this is that no such crime exists in the federal criminal code.”
 * https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-russians-call-out-mueller-file-request-to-view-secret-grand-jury-instruction/
 * Keith McClary (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely no mention of US-interference of the Russian 1996 election?
See:

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html https://offgraun.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/201612201405.pdf

These people (CIA-linked American consultants) even admitted it and boasted about it. Time ran a huge cover-story and there's even a movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324619/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

I find it highly bizarre that this is never mentioned even once in this article, given how related the incidents are.

Pot calling the kettle black extreme-edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.12.84 (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * USA has interfered elections around the world; it is certainly hypocritical. But per WP:DUE, we report on what reliable sources say. And they reflect this hypocrisy... and so must we. We could include links in the "See also" section if there are articles about the USA's interference though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is because it is not the subject of this article, and no I do not agree they are related.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * US->Russia interference is completey unrelated to Russia->US interence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.12.84 (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There simply doesn't seem to be a suitable place for mentioning this right now. Other than that there's no reason to hide it of course. Would 1933 re-occurring in Russia 1996 been a better thing than the West openly backing Yeltsin?Miacek (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. Public support for Jelzin was in the open, the US-advisors, their smear efforts against Jelzin's opponents etc. as talked in the Time-article. were NOT open. They admitted it AFTER the election. Also, 1933? Late-stage cold-war was actually more stable than what's going on today. I bet, lots of US politicans today would rather deal with a Brezhnev again than with a Putin and his oligarch buddies. Russia's oligarchs are not an improvement over their communists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.12.84 (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion pages are not a forum. Write it on my talk if you want to discuss this.Miacek (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but US-interference of the Russian 1996 may well be unrelated to 2016 interference (after all there were elections between the two).Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The place to mention it would be Foreign electoral intervention, which already has a section on it. It is odd, but I agree with others above that the 1996 interference is unrelated to the 2016 interference. The only way to get the 1996 stuff here would be having RS show that the 1996 caused or was directly related to the 2018. Which I do not think is the case. PackMecEng (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

New Assessments from Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees now differ from that of the House Intelligence Committee
In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee released transcripts of Trump Tower conversation between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya suggesting they could find a "smoking gun." 2601:447:4101:41F9:F827:6562:522C:8733 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yea, the smoking gun is that Fusion GPS met with Veselnitskaya before and after the Trump Tower meeting. It was another set up just like we are finding out about George Papadopoulos, Stefan Halper, Joseph Misfud and Alexander Downer.  The identity of the mole could be the real smoking gun.Phmoreno (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In response to a question from CNN’s Manu Raju about whether she herself had faith in the “high confidence” assessment in early 2017 by the CIA, FBI, NSA and DNI that the Kremlin sought to undermine public faith in the democratic process, denigrate Clinton and bolster Trump, Nielsen said:
 * ‘That the specific intent was to help President Trump win — I’m not aware of that.’ -U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen May 23rd. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And then Nielsen immediately followed by saying she did not doubt anything in the assessment, just that she wasn't aware of that key conclusion. This is raising concerns in some circles about the Trump administration's competency. But it falls under NOTNEWS and doesn't merit inclusion at this time. Geogene (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That is funny as the article is written as a collection of news blurbs of the hour with all kinds of contradictory information. NOTNEWS on WP in political articles is a jokes. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A simple question
I have seen a lot of debate about this topic, but no one seems to have answered one simple question: Did the Russians actually change even one vote that was cast in the election? Edknol (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What does your question have to do with improving the article? Geogene (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

gulf states
Regarding this addition - it's well sourced and written, best I can tell, neutrally, but it's not closely relevant to the topic. It's not about Russian interference, unless I'm missing something. Perhaps a different article would be better for it?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Russian government or Russians
The opening line "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election" cites 3 sources whose titles phrase like:
 * "a 3-Year Russian Campaign"
 * "Confidence Russia Interfered"
 * "Assessing Russian Activities"

As the 3 titles do not specify "government", I think it would be useful to elaborate via a quotation excerpt which part of these sources supports that among all Russians (a term which can also denote civilian/nationals, not just government) that the source singles out the government itself.

More useful too, would be to be more specific as to what is meant by "government". Does it mean the entire government or a specifically identified part of it? One official or dozens/hundreds?

For example if one American police officer killed a dog, we wouldn't necessarily write "American government kills dog". You'd do that if you had evidence it was a mass effort by notable higher-ups, enough to represent an overall government effort rather than isolated abuse.

I am not saying the 3 cited sources from NYT/NYmag/DNI office do not support the claim it was the Russian "government", just that I think we should consider adding some quotes to the sources (particularly the first two which are only called upon once) to explain where they say that.

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/01/report-high-confidence-russia-interfered-with-u-s-election.html mentions:
 * • Among the participants were covert intelligence operatives as well as “Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or ‘trolls.’
 * The rest of the report focuses heavily on the news network Russia Today, which is funded by the Russian government, a fact that’s never been hidden from the public — but, because it’s a public broadcast outfit, the evidence of Russian affiliation can be included in the report without compromising U.S. intelligence findings.

This appears to indicate that "Russia Today" is what is indicated by "state-funded media", I can't find specifies on which "agencies" or "intermediaries" though. Are those protected by sources/methods claims?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russia-mueller-election.html says:
 * Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent who has tracked the Russian campaign closely, said that he had no doubt that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was behind the effort, which was carried out by companies controlled by his friend and ally, Yevgeny V. Prigozhin. But he noted that the so-called trolls employed by Mr. Prigozhin took elaborate steps to obscure their identities and locations and to avoid leaving government fingerprints.
 * “From the beginning, they built this so it could be plausibly denied,” Mr. Watts said. Mr. Putin has repeatedly denied any government role in hacking and disinformation aimed at the United States, while coyly allowing that patriotic Russians may have carried out such attacks on their own.

I don't know if Yevgeny Prigozhin is officially classified as part of the Russian government, regardless of what his ties to Putin are. This seems closer to explaining the "intermediaries" classification.

If even Watts admits there is plausible deniability, then what is our basis for asserting "government interfered" in opening line? Where are the "government fingerprints"? There should be a high burden of proof applied for explaining such an accusation.

If this can't be found in the first two sources and can only be found somewhere in https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf then I think we should include a note explaining which part of it. This is a 25 page document. I realize that since it is called upon 6 times within the article that we shouldn't necessarily prioritize a quote for one call-upon in preference over the other five, though if we were, the first usage in the opening statement for such a serious claim would be the best candidate.

Can we find any versions of Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" which break the 25 pages up into individual pages or at least sections? This would allow the cites to be split into citing specific chapters or headings within the document, and separate citations would allow quotes to be used to more specifically explain how the document supports statements it is cited next to.

I think this approach is better than the "read the entire thing, agree that it supports all six things which call upon it" expectation. When you add a statement with a cite, it's generally better to Show Your Work, particularly with very large documents.

Such a split-PDF could also be potentially useful for the Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections (report) article. ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * First source says that the Russian government tried to hide their involvement, Second source says Russian government agencies, did not bother with the third.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Controversy
This article seems biased, I for one do not believe in this being legitimate and many others don't either, however, I appreciate the information commonly believed put into an article. I have no problem with that, but even some of the most minor and controversial are stated very strongly as facts, with no indication of controversy. It doesn't help that there is no controversy section to point out, so to the unknowledgeable reader it appears to be completely agreed upon facts rather than controversy. If one of these or something similar can be instated — leaving the article as it is but still acknowledging the controversies — this would be a lot more accurate and unbiased representation of the topic. Guymanforget (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree with Guymanforget.

Didn't take reading past the first sentence to read bias here. The way it is laid out suggests these conclusions to be written in stone and there is a sizeable community that does not concur with that assumption. Please correct to reflect neutrality! TheConduqtor (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This article reads like a DNC talking point paper. Not a single American has been convicted of collusion with the Russians and yet the article states as FACT it took place. Another example is the only references to David Nunes are colored to support Russian collusion which couldn't be further from his position. Also why is Crossfire Hurricane linking to this article?!? I'm going to try adding a link the The Nation's article on the technical details of the DNC hack that gives evidence to it being a leak not a hack and see how it goes. User:Tvillars (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That Nation bit has been considered and rejected. You can search the talk page archives to see the discussion. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I prefer to live in the real world where dissent is still seen as a useful path to ferreting out the truth. This page is yours.  Have a nice life.User:Tvillars (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Not all dissent is good decent. It's important not to fall into the trap of false equivalence. If anyone feels this article is biased, they should make a case for the specific sections based on language and sources used. Azuefeldt (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is entirely biased IMHO to damage donald trump's reputation. Like he said. There is no evidence of him in cahoots with the Soviets and that this whole thing is just a witch hunt! --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are 100% right that there is no evidence of Trump in cahoots with the Soviets!Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At least we can agree the USSR had nothing to do with the election! PackMecEng (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh I actually call Russia the Soviet Union always. In fact I think Putin is trying to bring that nation back to its USSR routes. Soviet Union = Russia. Regardless, Russia/Soviet Union didnt interfere on anything. its just something that the democraps came up with to try and undermine him.--Zgrillo2004 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing of this article is beyond poor, I looked at some of the articles in question claiming direct Putin influence and they have zero solid evidence, its all inferences or insinuations by unknown sources. "because we don't think anyone else would" is not evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.93.209 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Serious question: What caused the US-intelligence community to be suddenly beloved in the media?
Maybe I am out of the loop a bit, but even a few years ago, the CIA (Iraq war, WMDs, coups in South America, Abu Ghraib etc.) wasn't exactly a media darling, especially on MSNBC and the like. The CIA/FBI could say the sky is blue and you would have commentators on TV double-checking that (see: https://www.aclu.org/blog/lies-and-lying-liars-who-tell-them-cia-edition). Entire TV shows were made out of this sentiment (X-Files, American Dad)

But now three-letter-agency reports are regarded as gospel truth and are the new media darlings? WHAT? That's the biggest 180-shift I've ever seen. Can anyone explain that to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.46.48 (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is propaganda
I simply wanted to inform myself on the issue, to simply see the facts. I was astonished to find propaganda to such an extent at wiki. Folks, I spent the last three months in Turkey. I know fascist propaganda, devoid of facts and full of manipulation.

There is not a single assertion based on fact, observable and tangible in this article that pertains to interference. I wouldn’t know where to start to fix it, since it is written in its entirety by someone who could have made propaganda videos on TRT. It is the same tendentious language. Yuck.

My proposal is to rewrite it in its entirety, and to warn readers, till then, that what is given in length here, is a narrative, not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murat is my name (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Senate intel
Senate backs up assement. Needs adding and to go into lead. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/03/senate-intelligence-russia-election-meddling-692616 Casprings (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - contrary to WP:LEAD as not significantly in the article. I think you’re trying to build too much on one cite of just a couple short paragraphs anyway — not even 100 words long, is it?  And it’s offering opinions but little info on the event or link to more.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * p.s. I will suggest instead editing the body to provide link to what the Senate said and the actual report.  Could also do that with the Friday 13 indictment, provide cite to the event and of the actual indictment — it would be better to have event info and reactions, rather than just reactions.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Putin's own words
Today, Putin has confessed to directing some Russian officials to assist Trump in winning the election. A reporter asked “Did you want President Trump to win the election? And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?” Putin responded “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4101:41F9:5C4C:EB02:413C:2B53 (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that a confession, so I think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. The Washington Post finds it interesting that Putin appears to have contradicted what Trump has said numerous times, but this article isn't about Trump, per se. Geogene (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * See how NBC reports this: ""Yes I did. Yes I did," said the Russian leader, in an apparent answer to the first question." It would be misleading to claim that Putin was responding to the second question when reliable secondary sources do not. TFD (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Video
I just want to put this here as a source for both Putin and Trumps reaction to accusations: Victor Grigas (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Also this about voting machines: Victor Grigas (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A video alone is not that helpful. There needs to be secondary RS mentions to show what WP:WEIGHT of prominence (if any) it should have in the article, and to explain the context of the material.  And videos require time to play to even see what is in them, so usually I would favor just a text summary linking to a RS that has the video.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018
change the title "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" in "Russian alledged interference in the 2016 United States elections"

that would be honest thank you Sanderbelou (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  JTP  (talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Since when does there need to be consensus to change a statement for which there is no supporting evidence? The interference is merely alleged to have happened. So far, there is no compelling evidence supporting the notion that the Russians actually interfered. All we have are claims (all the sources for this are mere claims). We saw all these sorts of claims back in 2003 when we were gulled into going to war with Iraq - the same people are now pushing this idea that the Russians are interfering in our elections. Like George W. Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!". Ianbrettcooper (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * We follow reliable sources, not what an editor thinks he knows. In this case, what you think you know is completely wrong.- MrX 🖋 00:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No you do not. So 'Russia' (who knows what that means, whether it be random dudes in Russia sympathetic to Trump or government employees) made some propaganda ads on Facebook that affected an insignificant number of voters, so government establishment twists that into "RUSSIANS HACKING WAS THE ONLY REASON TRUMP WON!" and you guys work from the shadows to indirectly give that claim credibility.
 * Please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Mariia Butina
Why is all the relevant information about Butina's arrest in the caption to an image rather than in the text itself? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not know, but it looks bad and most of it laps into the next section. I’d suggest you go ahead and move the caption to the text.  Not particularly liking the image either, but that’s a separate bit.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018
Add to the end of the first paragraph (or just copy the "Putin's admission" to the more prominent and visible summary): State-sponsored Russian meddling in the US presidential election has been later confirmed by the Russian president himself. Ber4444 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ - We cannot conflate Putin's expressed desire that Trump win into an admission of election meddling.- MrX 🖋 22:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks acknowledgements in 1992 russian movie about spies and russian mafia
Some scenes of Weather Is Good on Deribasovskaya, It Rains Again on Brighton Beach 1992 movie about moscow special forces were filmed in the Trump Taj Mahal. Donald Trump is personally acknowledged with thanks in the closing credits. In those times in Russia this kind a movie only could be filmed in close ties with government and special departments. So this is possibly bright example of Trump connection with the Russian KGB and Federal Security Service from beginning of 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft37by (talk • contribs)
 * Don’t be silly. That location is Trivia even at that article, and talk of KGB is just OR on top.  In this article it is simply a WP:OFFTOPIC something that happened 24 years prior to the election.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What Mark said. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is how the interference started then it is relevant for this article. Removed from the other article though as per WP:TRIVIA Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)