Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 3

Propose we delete JAR section
Per WP:RECENT and despite the high-frequency media cycle comments, it is no longer an important factor in the Russian Interference. SPECIFICO talk  18:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The report is still being used by reliable sources on the subject. So it is still a relevant part to the article. Also it is one of the few officially released reports on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion of that report in recent daily or updated mainstream sources. It is mentioned in some weeklies that advance-date their content. Moreover mention in a source doesn't make the report noteworthy for discussion in this article, which after all is not about the report but about an event mentioned in the report. There's no article about the report.  Could you provide citations you think show that I am mistaken?  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources listed in that section alone, most recently & are from less than a week ago. Other sources are still doing articles on it as well. It just seems premature to removed the whole section while it is still an active and evolving subject. It also looks like it will be brought up again since he is planning on Rep. Mike Pompeo and Sen. Dan Coats to come up with their own report within 90 days. PackMecEng (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * All a week old, except CNET which is not a content-worthy mention, since the whole JAR is incidental now and Trump's recently revised stance acknowledges that. Let's see what other editors have to say. We can't include every accumulated twist and turn. We need an encyclopedic overview.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

By deleting the section we'd be saying the JAR never happened. How is this not Orwellian censorship? FallingGravity 21:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This is POV-driven deletion request: the report got plenty of coverage, but it was not very flattering, so the whole thing must be stricken from memory. JAR report is not "another twist": it was a much anticipated joint report by two of the nation's major security and intelligence agencies, which has received ample coverage in the press. If I'm not mistaken, it is the most notable and thorough statement from US officials to date on this issue. The report is also notable for falling far short of expectations, and uncontroversially so. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If at first you don't succeed... FallingGravity 22:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when do we use public expectations or in this case unreasonable and false expectations (that the most sensitive intelligence details would be spilled) to test whether something is of enduring encyclopedic significance? SPECIFICO  talk  23:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that it shouldn't be mentioned. But the section is undue for this bump in the road. The section as it now stands is a coatrack for commentary presented in such a way as to suggest that the interference never occurred when in fact the cited references are stating that the report does not of itself contain all of the evidence known to the intelligence community and congress people who were highly confident based also on classified non-public information. It would be fine to mention the JAR, particularly to the extent that it was used by Trump supporters to prolong their denials of Russian interference -- but it is not a sectionworthy fact about Russian interference which is after all the topic of this article. SPECIFICO talk  23:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – This JAR report is not even a week old and you want to censor all commentary about it? After it's been both praised as the ultimate smoking gun on one side and lambasted as a coatrack of innuendo on the other? Restructure comments yes, remove coverage no. — JFG talk 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. Which parts do you feel OK removing? Which parts do you think should be kept? Do you think it needs to be captioned as a separate section?  SPECIFICO  talk  23:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current subsection looks fine to me. No change is necessary unless new sources related to this particular report pop up. I would simplify the cumbersome attributions in the prose and add some plus and minus reactions from security experts. Mention that a large part of the report is devoted to criticism of RT News. Also quote parts from this analysis of the analysis. — JFG talk 00:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

New source
This is very relevant:


 * How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump, By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERGJAN. 11, 2017, The New York Times

BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a tough one, whilst compiled during the election it was not released till after it. Also there are accusations that this was in fake done at the behest of the GOP, not Russia.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ?? Have you been following the discussions above? This is just one more source to use for our existing content. Because it's newer, it contains more details. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not think that looking from WP perspective, this is different from any other political controversy. Is that a highly notable controversy described in multiple RS? If so, it must be described on WP pages per WP:NPOV. How it should be described? One should simply explain the controversy in sufficient detail, without claiming anything to be "the truth". Tell what the sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ?? Have you been following the discussions above? Your comment makes no sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Section heading
Somebody changed the section heading from "January 2017 classified document briefing" to "January 2017 Steele's compromising dossier". I think we should change it back. (I can't do it right now per 1RR.) The story we are reporting is about the briefing given to Trump and Obama, and the reactions to it. It is not about the dossier itself (which nobody but Buzzfeed has published), and it has not been confirmed that it is "compromising." Much less should we put the author of the dossier in the subject heading; he is not a notable or public person (most people looking at this section heading would say "Steele? Who is Steele?") Also, I think we should not trumpet his name like this since he is afraid of retaliation. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just saw this discussion section after adding some content to the article. I removed the date because this began in October 2016, as reported by Mother Jones. At that time Steele's name was not released. I also changed the level because the section is not related to the hacking at all. It's its own section dealing with the Russian's attempts to cultivate Trump for many years. The risk of blackmail was already mentioned by Mother Jones in their October article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this, but I think WP:BLPNAME applies, especially since family members are also involved and at risk. I have therefore removed the name and the county from the article.  I've left the references for now but they may also be iffy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with making it a whole separate section. This became a major story this week because of the information given to Obama, Trump, and Congress this week, which was given as an addendum to the other January briefing. So it certainly belongs in the section "U.S. intelligence analysis"; probably not in the "January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment" because of the earlier story from Mother Jones (which did not become a major story at that time). I would suggest making it a separate subheading under "U.S. intelligence analysis"; "Alleged compromising dossier on Trump" is OK as the name. I am going to make those changes for now, but we can continue to discuss it here.
 * As for Steele's name, I too would prefer to leave it out, but I'm afraid we have gotten beyond that point. Somebody made a whole article about Steele, and it is probably going to get redirected here, but in order to do that he has to be mentioned in this article. I will re-add a mention of his name to the article; I don't want its absence to be an argument against redirection. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. I see it's already been restored. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the title to "Briefing on alleged Trump dossier" to more accurately reflect that the section is about the January 2017 briefing, not the dossier itself which has existed for months. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The dossier does exist if I understand correctly. Hence it is not "alleged". It does not mean that info in dossier was the truth. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The way I'm interpreting it is that the document does exist, yes. Whether its an actual dossier containing real information, or an elaborate work of fiction, is being debated. Nonetheless, I'm open to rewording as long as it doesn't imply that the document is truthful without actual evidence of such. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How about "Briefing about alleged Russian dossier on Trump"? We know the dossier exists; it is alleged to be of Russian origin. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's probably on the right track, I'm just cautious about getting too wordy. "Briefing on alleged blackmail material" maybe? The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would title it simply "Russian dossier". This seem to be the most common name right now. This is not just a briefing. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it needs a little more context than that. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

??? The dossier is NOT "alleged to be of Russian origin" or a "Russian dossier". It's about things which allegedly happened in Russia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the dossier and its contents are not "alleged". It exists. It is the "veracity of" the contents which are "alleged". We need to get this right. How about "Briefing on 35-page dossier" ? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian information that compromises Trump
I would suggest this needs to be added: Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html
 * Do you have sources in addition to CNN?


 * Oh, this is gonna be fun (<-- sarcasm!).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts?CMP=twt_gu Casprings (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This also: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia
 * Yeah, I don't even know where to start with any of this... Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's now front page on The Washington Post and NY Times, so we can start with the best sourcing before we get into the website/guardian level citations. SPECIFICO talk  01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we also talk about this? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html AHC300 (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to lay out a brief overview: The news 'story' is that Trump (and Obama) received an intelligence briefing where details of Russian attempts at compromising Trump were laid out. Actual details of the compromising material have not been released or confirmed. US intelligence have confirmed the basis for the briefing was information from a source they state has been reliable in the past. So this aspect is not 'fake' news.
 * Subsequent stories have speculated/made unsubstantiated allegations as to what the compromising information is. Which has neither been confirmed, denied etc. This is what Trump states is 'fake'.
 * Russia denies everything as usual.
 * So at the moment we have a story about the next president being given a briefing where he is told a foreign power with a history of meddling in US politics has attempted to compromise him. Big woop. If Russia (and the UK, the rest of the world in fact) had *not* attempted to get compromising info on Trump I would be very surprised.
 * The allegations of some of the compromising material (I wont go into details) are seriously damaging enough to a living person that absent some actual confirmation they were in the briefing, they should not be mentioned.
 * In short, at the moment this is a high profile non-story. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "high profile non-story" <-- |oxymoron. Not clear on how you came up with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those scans (I'm not sure where they come from or how real they are) that linked to straight up allege that Trump was being fed intel by the Kremlin. That's a serious allegation that needs substantial sourcing to include. I suppose we could use the CNN and WaPo  sources to repeat the claims in those sources, but they need to be very carefully phrased and clearly put into source voice (e.g. "Authors at CNN and the Washington Post claimed that intelligence officials presented Donald Trump with information in a security briefing that Russia may have collected compromising information on him."). Note all the qualifiers, there.
 * But in the end, I say we wait a bit: These stories just came out yesterday, and they're all over the news. They can wait a week before showing up in an encyclopedia. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What everybody knows of course is that Trump etc could clear this up right now by confirming what was actually in the Briefing that allegedly compromises him. That he isnt actually doing this (other than to shout the speculation is a lie and the Intelligence services are leaking fake news) is going to work against him in the long run. Its the only reason these accusations cause trouble after all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not anything new or special. As CNN report (currently cited on the page) tells, "these same allegations about communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians, mentioned in classified briefings for congressional leaders last year, prompted then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to send a letter to FBI Director Comey in October, in which he wrote, "It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States." My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The only *new* bit is regarding the specific briefing, of which no verifiable details are available. Only rank speculation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This text from CNN report tells that according to Harry Reid there was in fact "explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government" in the possession of the FBI. Hence, in my opinion, that could be included in the page with appropriate attribution to Harry Reid and CNN. But if others think otherwise, that's fine. Let's not include. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This line of discussion is unhelpful. We can only work with what is sourced from a reliable verifiable source. We are not here for the truth we are here for what is sourced. Is the source of the article that? Yes/No. Then add it as a claim from that source. Then add if there is rebuttal from a credible source (assuming it does not give it undue weight which in this case isn't a concern).
 * While we need to be mindful of WP:BLP, that should not extend to giving "grace periods" for controversies to die down. We certainly did not do this in the past and if you think we should start doing that now, feel free to propose it as a policy change, probably to WP:BLP. Until a consensus for such a change is reached, old rules apply.
 * This is how we always conducted business on this site. Whatever happens in US politics cannot interfere with our operation. I would encourage everyone to avoid discussing politics here, less so with what-if scenarios.
 * -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with except on one point: While we need to be mindful of WP:BLP, that should not extend to giving "grace periods" for controversies to die down.
 * I would like to point out that after controversies have died down is when we're most likely to find high quality sources that examine the subject as a whole (indeed, it's impossible to find sources which cover an ongoing situation as a whole, because they can't cover what hasn't happened yet) and treat it with significant objectivity. Also, there are 'meta' considerations, like the constant arguing that's going on at this page. If the pace of editing slows down, the pace of arguing slows down. As the pace of the arguments slows down, the likelihood of an editor becoming disruptive decreases (they have more time to think about things, and aren't being bombarded by every editor who disagrees with them) along with the frequency of possible disruptions (because the things liable to set someone off are coming fewer and further between). So I think there are good reasons to be patient with these articles. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh absolutely. There is no emergency here. We can certainly wait a while, but that does not mean we should wait until the controversy is completely stale. Moderation in both sides is probably best. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This section is very long. I think it is surely possible to summarize the whole issue in two-three paragraphs. -Darouet (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Update: I've tried my best to shorten the section. I'm not especially wedded to the version as I've edited it, I just think the section rambled on way to long, considering how much content there is in this story overall. I also deleted mention of Cohen: it strikes me that if we are going to observe BLP concerns for Steele, the same concern should be extended to Cohen. -Darouet (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those edits look good to me. We don't need a giant section on a dossier whose conclusions haven't been vetted, whose contents would comprise a BLP violation if they came from anything less than a stellar source, and which has been subject to a great deal of skepticism from from the political left and right (the original buzzfeed article makes a point of noting how sketchy the dossier is, for example). This has the potential to become a big deal, but right now it's just a salacious, moderately important detail. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, do you think any mention of the alleged "golden showers" thing would be wise? I only went as far as mentioning that the operatives claimed to have collected 'embarrassing material", but the claim that the FSB had people do their business on a bed that Obama had previously slept in has gotten a lot of media attention. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say to leave it out. The most relevant thing is that it claimed the Kremlin had "embarrassing material". While there may be an argument made for including the details of that materials, I think WP:BLP concerns trump those (pun intended, thank you). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We should not be mentioning any salacious details, not even on this talk page, much less in the article. Unconfirmed embarrassing or derogatory allegations against living persons are prohibited by Wikipedia's BLP policies. --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems pointless not to mention it, as the claims have been widely aired and Trump has responded to it (by saying he's a germophobe).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Some people believe that the proposed title is a correct reflection on what the sources say, while others believe the proposed title is a violation of WP:WEASEL, is not a correct reflection on what the sources say, and is, at this point, beating a dead horse. Some people have said that words like "alleged" and especially "allegation(s)" aren't weasel words and that the proposed title is more neutral, while others beg to differ. All in all, there's no consensus at this time for a move, and I suggest waiting at least a full month before trying again. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  18:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – Given lack of consensus on prior title change requests and persistent criticisms of the current title (see for example new section above), I am formally submitting the previously-suggested variant that gathered some informal support in prior discussions. It has been noted by some editors that many reliable sources now use some variant of "allegations" in their reporting about the story. In the real world, the debate over the nature, extent, sources and impact of election interference is still raging. Per WP:NPOV we must represent all significant opinions in a balanced way, and the current title favors a single version of the narrative. — JFG talk 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No dead horse. Previously rejected. Wait a while before reconsidering the same title. SPECIFICO  talk  16:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This title hasn't been proposed before. It follows that it also can't have been rejected before. Let's consider it on its merits, rather than dismissing it out-of-hand. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, there have been proposals to add "alleged" the title here and here and in the other move request on this very page.- MrX 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right: a month has passed already since the title was changed repeatedly out of process, and judging by the volume of comments today, it doesn't look like the situation is settled. Hence this move request is legitimate and timely. It's not even a case of WP:CCC because there was never any consensus on the title, ever since this article was first written. Some editors are apparently confusing WP:DEADHORSE with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT… I'm seeing every discouraged tactic from this chapter being employed here. — JFG talk 03:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Dead horse. While the "nature, extent, and impact" of the Russian interference by the Russians is not yet fully understood, the fact that interference did take place is treated as fact by the reliable expert sources. This is not just the unanimous position of the U.S. authorities (who say there is "no doubt" that the interference occurred), but is also treated as fact by reliable non-governmental experts on both Russia and cybersecurity, e.g.:
 * PBS Frontline, "How Russia Looks to Gain Through Political Interference: "Russia experts say that Moscow's apparent attempts to interfere in the internal politics of the United States are a familiar sight. .... 'This is the kind of thing that Russia has been doing for a long time, you could argue going back to the 1940s,' said Jeffrey Mankoff, deputy director of the Russia and Eurasian Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies").
 * New York Times: "'There's overwhelming evidence that the Russian government carried out these operations,' said Christopher Porter, a manager of analysis at the cybersecurity firm FireEye. He said that while some individual hacks might have been carried out by any number of actors, the overall pattern of attacks attributed to A.P.T. 28 pointed directly at the Russian government."
 * Neutralitytalk 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I was all set to agree with this more neutral title, per comments at previous discussions, until I saw this article about a new report from US intelligence. There is no need to weaken the story here — this really happened. We can put alternative views and explanations in the article, but the title should be as clear as possible. Brad  v  16:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this as a more neutral title, and supported by all available sources. -Darouet (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, there has been no evidence provided to date that Russia is involved in this; nor is there evidence that the intent was to interfere with the elections. 83.162.192.18 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The closing administrator should disregard the IP editor's comment. First, the IP editor has just six edits, including the one to our talk page. Second, the assertion that there's been "no evidence" flies in the face of the sources, which describe the evidence as overwhelming. Neutralitytalk 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy that says that IPs can't vote in move proposals? If not, I don't think we should remove the IP's vote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Say what? Am I being judged on the number of edits I've done from this IP? and the second point, sorry - read the newspapers, for instance The Guardian - I think there is a general consensus there that there is no evidence at all in the latest report. Overwhelming certainly isn't the appropriate word. 83.162.192.18 (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: This is pretty self-explanatory. The truth of how the DNC and Podesta leaks came about isn't known with certainty, as reflected by coverage in reliable sources. Editors can have their personal opinions, but if we're being honest, none of us is certain about who is right. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Even if we choose to present U.S. intelligence information as fact, they only claim medium to high confidence. TFD (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Represented in multiple sources as such. As already been discussed. Title is short and allows the reader to find the story. Casprings (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Telling "allegations" is actually the way of saying that something was only an allegation (consider Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge as an example). However, a lot of publications tells there was an actual interference by Russia (and a highly successful one!), not only in the form of hacking, but also as a state-sponsored propaganda campaign through RT TV and other media. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A slightly different version ("Intelligence reports" of Russian interference instead of "Allegations") of the proposed title was proposed by JFG on December 29 and rejected.  Putting the word "alleged" in the title does not make the title more neutral; it slants it toward the opinion of the doubters, and that is the minority view, certainly after the Jan 6 Intelligence Community Assessment.  An impartial title would have been "Russian interference in the 2016 United States election" because is anyone really doubting "Russian interference", even if they are doubting Russian government involvement and/or orders?  And in about 10 years or so, the doubters can submit an FOIA request to see if any of the currently classified information can be unclassified and released to the public.  Are you seriously expecting any intelligence agencies to disclose their current resources and methods to the public at large?  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Allegations" doesn't slant in either direction. It's an objective description of the content of this article. Look through the wiki article. Does it say anywhere, as a fact, that Russia interfered in the US elections? It describes allegations, denials and third-party commentary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Slant: I beg to differ, but I won't go into a Monty Python "Yes, it does. No, it doesn't" routine here.  "The unclassified report is unlikely to convince a single skeptic, as it offers none of the evidence intelligence officials say they have to back it up—none of those emails or transcripts of phone calls showing a clear connection between the Russian government and the political intrusions. The reason—revealing how U.S. spies know what they know could endanger U.S. spy operations".(Daily Beast) Also, it seems that this was a rushed draft of the report, not the final version, but at the moment I can't locate the source where I read that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems common sense since they are allegations at this point. It would also be more precise and consistent with similar articles. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I've mentioned before on how reliable sources still use "alleged" and "allegations" to refer to the hacking or the U.S. government's response. Following the sources shouldn't be a difficult choice to make. FallingGravity 00:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Considering the DNI report has very little evidence and even the NSA was 'moderately confident', ie 50%.Along with the FBI and CIA disagree at first this should be 'Allegations' because there is obvious disagreements within the US government on whether it is 100% true or not. --Bongey (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose title is needlessly cumbersome and weasel-ly, the article lead makes clear that these are allegations and the article itself has the job of identifying who is accusing and on the basis of what evidence. Shall we change the title of Posited as possibly existent supreme being? Or assume that readers have enough brain to come to their own assessments based on the strength of evidence offered? Present title is clear and close to a COMMONNAME, though some suggestions in prev. RfC's seem even simpler and as close to neutral as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Objective evidence does not go beyond Russian influence on the elections through Russian controlled news sources. While some characterize this as "interference" with the elections, by that definition the UK "interfered" with US elections when then PM David Cameron made disparaging remarks about Trump as a candidate.  That kind of thing is not what most readers think of as election interference.  Anything beyond that is only alleged at this point.Warren Dew (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Current title could be constructed better to be less clunky, but changing it to something that less accurately reflects the source-able, more verifiable version of reality does no good. All major news outlets that have been acceptable sources present this as 'what happened', not 'what possibly happened'. By the suggested logic, how can we confirm that Pres. JFK was murdered if our main sources of it happening were major newspapers, TV networks, radio stations from 1963? It is the most agreed upon version of reality that JFK was murdered in Dallas by Oswald, thus that is what should be presented as the single version of reality we agree oncredible differing viewpoints can certainly be included but unless that differing view becomes the most agreed-upon reality then it doesn't void the current known reality. We don't fully know that gravity exists and planets are attracted to one another, but we take it as the single-reality as it is the most likely outcome. It is up to those with dissenting minority views to present enough evidence to form a new majority. --Tunafizzle (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This simply isn't true. Most reliable sources discuss present "Russian hacking" or "interference" as a claim made by US government officials. If you doubt this, go look again carefully at the news sections of reliable sources like the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian, or even major non-English newspapers, like Le Monde and Süddeutsche Zeitung. They generally refer to claims made by US government officials. One of the frustrating things here is that people keep claiming the reliable sources state "Russian interference" as a fact, but when we actually did an analysis of them above, that wasn't at all the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're the one getting it wrong, the discussion is above. You're just doing the ol' WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is some WP:IDHT on both sides. Most sources today do qualify the allegations. — JFG talk 09:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Marek, I actually went through the effort to choose five articles at random from reliable sources, and see how they treat "Russian hacking." You choose to ignore the results, but then throw around WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But what should I expect from one of Wikipedia's best known edit warriors? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I don't quite trust in your "random" sampling procedure. Also, I'm not sure which part you're exactly referring to, but above you were claiming that pretty much any source that says "US intelligence community said..." was equivalent to the source saying "it's alleged that..." Which is obviously a false equivalence. So yeah, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
 * And "best known"? Really? Awww, shucks, you're too kind. I'm not good at taking compliments, *blush* *swoon* *spin* *faint* *breathe heavily*... *dream*...
 * Seriously, discuss content not editors, keep your WP:ASPERSIONS to yourself, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.... Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Marek, you began the argument above by accusing Thucydides of IDHT. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. -Darouet (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying "you're engaging in IDHT" in reference to a particular statement and calling someone "one of Wikipedia's best known edit warriors" are completely different. And you know it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Marek if you look above, you'll see that you pulled out the IDHT ad hominem first, in reply to Thucydides' reply to Tunafizzle. It was after that first "stone" that he threw the second. All I'm saying is that if you don't want the argument to descend to ad hominem, don't take it there. -Darouet (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:WEASEL. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's an attempt to weasel.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Calling CIA allegations of interference "allegations" is not WP:WEASEL. If we want to attribute it fully, we could move the article to whatever the final report's name will be. --Pudeo (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, remember me, the user whose edits you tracked for no apparent reason and whom you baselessly accused of being a paid editor? (Still waiting for an apology but not holding my breath.)  So excuse me for asking whether you even read the article before posting an opinion. "CIA allegations of interference"?  CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, DNI, US government, House speaker Ryan, et al., all of them mentioned in the article and the references and all of them concluding that there was interference. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. TFD put it well: "Reliable sources say ... that U.S. intelligence claims with medium to high certainty that the Russians hacked into the DNC." "Alleged" is a WP:WEASEL word, but "Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" is simply what this article describes, based on the sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. There are two parties to this, on one side you have the Democrats, the US President, very few Republicans, many of the largest US newspapers and magazines, some international media and various US intelligence agencies, on the other side you have most Republicans, the US President Elect, the Russian, some US and international media and the Russian government. It doesn't take a whole lot of thinking to understand that those making the allegations are not obviously more honest than the other. In this situation, when there is a lack of objective evidence, these are just allegations and the title should say so. The current title suggests that the interference did happen, and that is POV and misleading. And yes, I have been editing Wiki for over 12 years and this is my real name. And by no means is this a "dead horse", this is very much an important current affair. JS (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and since seeing the evidence Donny has now changed his his argument from "it did not happen" to "it did not matter". Sorry seems like even he now accepts it did happen.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The proposed title is an incremental improvement over the current very bad one. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment With respect, far too many of the arguments here are about whether editors believe that sources have convincingly proven these allegations are true. The truth or otherwise is a proper subject for the content, it is not a necessary subject for the title, for which a clear, concise, common name is required. It is not necessary to believe that the allegations have been proven, nor indeed that the balance of probability is that the allegations are true, to recognise that the article subject is 'interference' or 'hacking'. International matters, especially those involving 'intelligence' matters, are different from ordinary crimes in many ways and are not susceptible to the same conditions as would apply on such articles. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good comment. I think that current title does not make a statement that the interference actually happened. It only denotes what's the subject of the page. However, the suggested new title was constructed to say that the subject of the page actually does not exist using weasel wording. I agree that current title can be improved, but not as suggested above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. The current title describes a phenomenon. It does not actually unequivocally state whether it did happen or not. These attempts at weaseling a title all have the same aim of very strongly implying that it did not happen. *That* is POV, not the current title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Just today, Reince Priebus states that even Trump accepted that the Russia Hacks happened according to this Reuters article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even that article calls them "allegations that Russia was behind the hacks." It never says that they suddenly didn't suddenly stopped being allegations once the president-elect reportedly accepted them. FallingGravity 23:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - The proposed title is neutral. This is a global wikipedia, not the "US Government POV" wikipedia.  As the matter has not been adjudicated, the proposed title best addresses the current situation. XavierItzm (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The current title is neutral, the proposed one is an attempt at WP:WEASEL. Reflecting what reliable sources say is not "US Gov PO", it's just... reflecting what reliable sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it is not WP:WEASEL when the matter has not been adjudicated. XavierItzm (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite a few reliable sources call them "allegations". I could list them out if needed. FallingGravity 23:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A redirect for this title exists, if the redirect is not notable it can be deleted. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No redirect existed when the move request was submitted: you just created it a minute before !voting… The contention that the current title fails neutrality per WP:POVTITLE is not going to be solved by adding a redirect. — JFG talk 21:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Wikipedia shouldn't select a name based on their own conclusions of the "evidence"--the fact remains that major governments disagree on what exactly happened and the topic is being currently discussed and acted upon on the international level. Some of the oppose comments above seem to suggest people think the name should stay because they "believe it really happened" after reading some newspapers.  In other words, people seem to think it's okay to abandon the principle of being neutral because, in their judgment, it happened.  Why not pick a neutral title and let people read what cited facts are collected here for and against it? Belmast (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC) — Belmast (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Every user's input matters here. So what if is new to Wikipedia? That doesn't mean we should disregard their vote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Given how many topic banned/blocked users we have in this topic area, and how infested it is with sock puppets, and the canvassing and meat puppeting that goes on external sites, it's perfectly rational to be skeptical of an account which appears to have been created solely for the purpose of !voting in this RfC. Yes, we very much *should* disregard this !vote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm new to editing, sure, but not to viewing/reading. The first vote on this list where someone tried very clearly to mislead people into thinking that a vote recently had happened on this request was what made me want to sign up.  Again I'm kind of new so it took me like 10 minutes to sift through to find out the first guy was lying and then down below tried to close voting early.  For those able to do so, I wholeheartedly volunteer to have my IP etc checked for being a sockpuppet.  Belmast (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - There are more than enough RS that support the current title. The only way I'd support adding "Allegations" is if we substitute all of the current sourcing with golden bars from here -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which RSes are you talking about? CNN and AP both use "allegations" like it's no problem. FallingGravity 00:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:WEASEL. In a WP:TITLE? How WEASEL can you get... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not weaseling in this context. As part of the WP:AT article titling policy, the section on neutral descriptive titles WP:NDESC specifically says:
 * Most RS today discuss this affair as accusations by the US against Russia, so that's what we must work from. Opinions vary widely in RS on whether those accusations have been convincingly proven or are totally bunk, so WP can't take a firm position one way or the other, it is our duty to show the nuanced versions of the story, as attributed in sources, and let readers reach their own conclusions. And if you allow me a bit of wikilawyering: WP:WEASEL is a style guideline part of WP:MOS, whereas WP:NDESC and WP:POVTITLE are policies part of WP:AT (how to choose titles), which carry more weight. And of course WP:NPOV is one the WP:Five pillars of this wonderful project. — JFG talk 03:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I can appreciate your arguments, but I promise I know my policies, my guidelines, and my MOS very well. What trumps policies, hands down, is WP:COMMONSENSE. I think we both know that I could selectively pull pieces from the same policies and structure them to argue that the converse is true... to which you could respond to my wikilawyering, ad nauseam. In the spirit of how readers would understand "alleged" prefacing the title, common sense tells me that it is understood as 'that means the accusations are lies'. Per WP:PRECISION, this article is about Russian interference in the 2016 US election, and I credit the reader with understanding that it means the current event under scrutiny. I find the proposal to smack of the halo effect, and that such use of a potent signifier is making a heavy-handed point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't viewed the word "alleged" as a signifier that the interference is false: only that the truth of the allegations remains unknown. Consider that the present title declares interference has occurred, period. By contrast, alleged interference may have, in reality, constituted interference. I think your reaction to the proposed title is what I would feel if the proposal was "Supposed interference..." i.e. editorially signifying the unlikelihood of the interference. -Darouet (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully comprehend your point, which is why I took my time in casting a !vote. NPOV titles are problematic for WP:RECENTISM articles at the best of times, but I am honestly of the conviction that 'alleged' does read as 'supposed' in the context. Whatever my personal feelings on any given subject are, I am compelled to respond according to my best judgement on what I believe to be in the spirit of the project. I concede that my judgement may be wrong, as would be the case with anyone else who is genuinely making an effort to make the best call, but am not swayed from my distaste for the use of such descriptors as modifiers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thought I still disagree with your sense of the word "allegation." As Thucydides sort of points out below, RS use of the term allegation makes it hard to oppose its use, even if it does imply doubt (I think it does, but does not imply falsehood). Both Bob and Falling Gravity had proposed titles that avoided either the word/phrase "allegation" or "Russia did it" - somewhere up above - to the effect of "Russia and the 2016 elections," which I think would encompass the information in this article. -Darouet (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thought I still disagree with your sense of the word "allegation." As Thucydides sort of points out below, RS use of the term allegation makes it hard to oppose its use, even if it does imply doubt (I think it does, but does not imply falsehood). Both Bob and Falling Gravity had proposed titles that avoided either the word/phrase "allegation" or "Russia did it" - somewhere up above - to the effect of "Russia and the 2016 elections," which I think would encompass the information in this article. -Darouet (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:WEASEL. The proposed title is an attempt cast doubt on the widely-accepted fact that Russia did interfere with US elections. There is no credible doubt that it actually happened.- MrX 01:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Newspapers all throughout the country and world - with few exceptions - refer to the statements made by US officials. If you read the "allegation" section of WP:WEASEL, you'll see that allegation is an appropriate word when misconduct has been alleged but is not definitively known to have occurred. -Darouet (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But the misconduct is definitely known to have occurred, unless you believe that there is a massive conspiracy between multiple government agencies, legislators, the president and his staff, the news media, and cyber security experts. The only ones refuting any of this are the parties that participated in the interference, a handful of demagogues, and the fake new commentariat. - MrX 12:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From the Wall Street Journal's news section, today: "The aerial anxiety adds to bilateral tensions between the U.S. and Russia, already rising over Moscow’s increasingly assertive role in propping up Mr. Assad, its alleged interference in the U.S. presidential campaign and its earlier seizure of Crimea" (emphasis added; ). What category does the WSJ fall into: party that participated in the interference, demagogue, or fake news commentariat? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Dead horse proposal that was just rejected. --Tataral (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This proposal (with minor changes in wording) has been made numerous times, and each time either shot down or failed to gain consensus. The fact that it continues to be made speaks only for the tendentiousness of the minority who continues to re-word and remake it. I've asked multiple times for editors who repudiate claims of Russian interference for reliable sources indicating any reasonable level of doubt in the body of reliable sources. I have yet to receive even a single response. What I see in the RSes is overwhelming credulity of the idea. The minority view in the reliable sources isn't even that there is some doubt, but that we can't dismiss the arguments of those unreliable sources who express doubt out of hand. So when there's no support in the RSes for this view, there can be no support on WP. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal describes the "inferference" as "alleged." From a news article published just today: "The aerial anxiety adds to bilateral tensions between the U.S. and Russia, already rising over Moscow’s increasingly assertive role in propping up Mr. Assad, its alleged interference in the U.S. presidential campaign and its earlier seizure of Crimea" (emphasis added; ). The WSJ isn't alone in this - most newspapers describe "Russian inteference" as an allegation or claim made by certain people and organizations e.g., (U.S. intelligence services). All this proposal is asking is for the title to reflect how reliable sources describe "Russian interference," namely as "alleged." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are implying that the word "alleged" implies doubt, or that attribution of the accusations imply doubt, then you are tacitly acknowledging the point many editors have made about "alleged" being a weasel word. You can't have it both ways. Also, I want to state clearly so you don't think I've conceded the point: none of those sources express any doubt whatsoever. Show me the reliable sources making a case for the hacks possibly not originating from Russia. Once they exist, we can acknowledge that this is in dispute in the RSes. Then, we would need to establish that the majority view is that the accusations are contentious in order for us to treat them as contentious. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Alleged" implies that one doesn't know the truth of an accusation. The Wall Street Journal is using that word to signal that they don't know whether Russia interfered in the US elections. Show me the reliable sources making a case for the hacks possibly not originating from Russia. News articles in reputable newspapers are, overwhelmingly, not arguing the point either way. Those arguments are left to the opinion pages. The news articles call Russian interference "alleged," or attribute the claim specifically to whoever made it. There are plenty of opinion articles that argue both sides (and some are cited in this wiki article), but those opinion pieces aren't reliable sources for statements of fact. Again, all this proposal is asking is for the title to treat "Russian interference" in the way most reliable sources do: as an allegation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe you could stand to benefit from researching the difference between the way something is 'treated' in journalistic prose and the way something is 'framed' in journalistic prose. You constantly conflate the two. The allegations are treated as if they were true: No-one discusses the (hypothetical) raging debate among experts. But they are framed as allegations because Russia doesn't admit it and there hasn't been a smoking gun yet. This is very similar to the difference between grammar and syntax. And I'm still waiting for the RSes who express doubt. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're creating a false distinction. The Wall Street Journal calls Russian interference "alleged." That's really the end of the story. "And I'm still waiting for the RSes who express doubt." And I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that most RSes treat "Russian interference" as an allegation or claim, rather than a fact. You believe the allegations. That's fine. You have a right to an opinion. But because news articles don't explicitly declare your opinion wrong, you want to say they're implying your opinion is right. They aren't declaring your opinion right. Reliable sources use phrases like "alleged," "officals claim," and so on, and so should we. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a false distinction, it's an important one. Numerous news stories on convicted criminals refer to them being "charged" with their crimes, "convicted" of their crimes and even go so far as to use those words you care so much about; "alleged" and "accused". That doesn't change the fact that no amount of attribution changes the facts that these stories are treated as if the criminal did, in fact, commit the crime. In many cases, when they discuss criminals who maintain their own innocence, they will never explicitly describe the criminal as a criminal or attribute guilt to them. This is journalism writing 101, here. Hell, even when the criminal admits their crimes, the writers rarely directly ascribe them. See and  for two stories that never once directly attribute the crime to the subject of the work, yet nonetheless treat the subject as being guilty. (You probably won't notice the parallels to the way many of these articles about the hackings are written, but I and many others do.)
 * As for what you're waiting for, I'd advise you not to hold your breath. Seeing as how I've acknowledged it multiple times and explained exactly why it doesn't mean what you keep insisting it means, seeing as how I've never denied it even implicitly and seeing as how you still have the audacity to sit here and demand I do so, I highly doubt anything I could possibly write would get through to you as anything other than "Blah blah Hillary Clinton, blah blah Russia sucks, blah blah blah, in the name of our Lord and Savior George Soros, Amen." MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * could we please keep questions and responses being posed about !votes in this section brief. As has already been pointed out, prolonged 'discussions' should be taken to the section below. Everyone understands that this is sticky issue, but anything outside of civil questions being posed to editors who have !voted, provided their rationale, and have made it clear that they are certainly not given to being swayed to someone else's way of thinking is inappropriate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but and I were discussing something here. If you don't have anything to add to it, please don't jump into thread. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Iryna had something to contribute: the advice that we both shut our stupid pie holes. I, for one, intend to heed her advice. Please join me. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This has been suggested multiple times and failed repeatedly. Since the previous attempts, the sources have only gotten stronger on this issue. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After a month, it rather looks to me that sources have not generally gotten stronger, but rather more cautious and more divided. Most recent sources which support the intelligence assessment make sure to qualify their statements, while sources which are skeptical of the story have become more polarized, especially after the JAR report which is being criticized as vague and inconclusive. (Well, sure, Russia funds RT, is that the big news we're supposed to freak out about?) More than ever, the allegations are disputed and WP can't take sides. — JFG talk 01:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. That weasel-worded horse is DEAD. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since there were discussions a lot about balanced weight of sources, I would like to suggest that reliable sources should be gathered as much as possible and let's see if the majority say it's an allegation or not. Personally I think it would be beneficial to those all interested. --Horus (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No reason whatsoever to change this title, except that I am not a fan of beginning titles with years. But no "alleged." That's weasel-land. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose addition of weasel words when the majority of RS have no trouble asserting some form of Russian manipulation in the election as fact. I would prefer a more active voice but the current title is acceptable. Geogene (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's all been said above. WP:HORSEMEAT, WP:WEASEL, WP:V. Wikipedia doesn't need alt-right fake news getting in the way of being an encyclopedia. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming. Current title is salient; it does not describe individual actions that could be questioned, but a specific pattern of events. - Mardus /talk 10:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning Support. Breaking from some of the previous comments, but "allegations" seems entirely appropriate here. For one thing there are different ways the US government has said Russia tried to interfere in the US election(s). Back in November it was that Russian hacking forces would try to discredit the US election process by hacking ballot machines. While some voters believe this actually happened, there is no evidence that Russia managed to sway the vote tallies. In this case it definitely falls under "allegation" because we're not really sure whether Russian hackers targeted voting machines. Another "allegation" that is making the media rounds is that Russia has compromising information on Russia, and many sources are using "allegation" to refer to this. The article's main "allegation" is that Russian hackers infiltrated the DNC and published some of these via websites like WikiLeaks. I'm inclined to believe this is true, especially considering that Russian hackers used similar methods in other countries. Some editors here seem to believe that just because something is likely true doesn't make it an "allegation." However, true allegations are a real thing in the court of law. For example, it might be true that there were war crimes during 2006 Lebanon War, or that Donald Trump or Bill Clinton are perverts, and it's almost certainly true that Lance Armstrong used dope, but we have "allegations" in these titles to signal to the reader that not all of these claims have been substantiated; much like some of the different claims about Russian interference discussed in this article. FriendlyGhostUser (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the title change. At this point, these are still allegations. Reliable sources claim they are allegations. Current (lack of) evidence publicised suggests they are still allegations (and yes, this is taking into account the report from the ODNI). The Wikipedia article itself only describes it as accusations from the U.S. Government, not as agreed upon facts. There is still doubt about specific aspects of the Russian influence, such as Assange and Murray stating they didn't recieve leaked emails from Russian sources. Wikipedia can choose to live in a fantasy where these events are universally regarded as proven facts by keeping the title as is. Or, we can change the title to this proposal which more clearly described the current situation. We can have a non-nuetral point of view that deems the U.S. Government's statements as undeniable and more reliable than other prominent sources. Or, we can have WP:NPOV in the title. Also, this isn't a weasel title. Wrongdoings asserted but unconfirmed can be called alleged according to WP:WEASEL, and asserted but unconfirmed is what a significant amount of the reliable sources say. So, that's why I support the move. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support These are allegations made by one party against another. The article itself begins by declaring that the U.S. government has accused Russia of interference. If these are facts then it should state it as such. The article contains claims made by intelligence officials, but no supporting evidence to justify those claims. For instance the lead says that "the US intelligence community assessed "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." Similarly, there are statements such as "Putin "personally directed" the operation". There is no evidence to support any of this, only claims by the US intelligence community. Since the accused deny the claims, there is no reason to believe one party over the other. The title should be changed to reflect that these are allegations, not facts. Elia Soaten (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion – move Jan 7
RE: "The truth is not known..." The truth is never known, and WP doesn't care. WP:V That's why e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald is described as Pres. Kennedy's assassin. SPECIFICO talk  20:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:V indeed. Most reliable sources are reporting on claims made by the US government that Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential election. You are personally convinced by those allegations, and that's fine. But what's not fine is trying to write your personal conviction into the article. I'm not 100% convinced that my view is correct, and I would view it as inappropriate to try to force an online encyclopedia to reflect my personal convictions. We need to treat this issue the same way that most reliable sources do - that is, with caution. We don't know whether the allegations made by US intelligence agencies are true, or whether Assange's statements about his source are true, or whether the Russian government denials are true, and we shouldn't pretend in the article that we know more than the reliable sources do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 411, I don't have any opinion as to what happened, just as I have no opinion as to who shot the President. I am not convinced of anything regarding the hacking. Please don't accuse another editor of trying to push POV into the article. This thread is about the title and I stated my opinion that this discussion about the title is stale and then made a civil and pertinient comment on your remark above. SPECIFICO  talk  00:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed the truth is never known. However, we go by what reliable sources say.  They say Oswald killed Kennedy and that U.S. intelligence claims with medium to high certainty that the Russians hacked into the DNC.  It does not matter why reliable sources describe these two assertions differently.  It could be that intelligence has couched its language or it could be the Warren Commission released sufficient evidence that allows for no doubt, while U.S. intelligence has released no evidence.  Note too that U.S. intelligence has a long history of misinformation most significantly about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction.  TFD (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Referring to the Kennedy assassination is just a perfect example of a strawman argument. Only fringe people believe that Oswald didn't assassinate Kennedy. Here we have the US President Elect saying that he does not believe the allegations. JS (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And now he is only saying they did not matter (As well as using a kind of "but the biog boys did it first" kind of argument). Hell he even admits it happens "“...While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions...". All he is now willing to say is that it made no difference.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually large numbers of (intelligent, rational) people are not satisfied with the 'lone gunman' account and feel it leaves too much unexplained. One does not need to be a fan of the JFK film, or any silly conspiracy theory (which often obfuscate rather than enlighten,) to feel that the whole story has never been adequately answered. Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about JFK, or his alleged assassination, so please stop talking about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From previous attempts with other proposed titles, there does not appear to be a reasonable chance to reach consensus on any change, for now. So I would suggest postponing any of these title change proposals until there is some reason to believe that the situation regarding editors' preferences will change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An analogy is not a "straw man", but the point can be restated in different terms:
 * No earthly facts are known with certainty. RS report (and the cited statements of nearly all persons who have access to the relevant non-public information confirm) that the best estimate is that the Russians and Putin are responsible for the hack. "Allegation" is a highly loaded weaselly word that has a very different connotation than "best estimate" "probable" or any of the expressions of confidence we've heard from the intelligence community, technical cybersecurity folks, and the bipartisan mainstream US political establishment. I haven't seen any editor here try to suppress any direct denial or refutation by any Russian. The article should include Russian dissent, but there's ample evidence to reject the move proposal here. SPECIFICO  talk  15:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If "allegation" is a "highly loaded weaselly word" here, then why does CNN use it in their headline? Why does the Associated Press call them allegations? ABC News calls it "alleged" multiple times. In fact, ABC News even calls it "alleged interference" while quoting anonymous officials who insist Russia's interference is "fact." If you have an RS which argues against using "allegation" to refer to Russian interference, please provide it here. FallingGravity 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Alleged"/"allegations" aren't neutral terms, they're expressions of doubt, and when used in the name of the page it's Wikipedia expressing the doubt. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, and "interference by Russia"/"Russian interference" isn't a person whose reputation needs to be protected. As for the alternative theories out there (400-pound guy in NJ, 14-year old, China) propagated on Twitter etc., what facts do we have supporting them? Zilch, to my knowledge. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that "alleged" is an expression of doubt, then you'll have to accept that reliable news sources express doubt about the idea that Russia interfered in the US election. For example, the Wall Street Journal included this in a news article today: "The aerial anxiety adds to bilateral tensions between the U.S. and Russia, already rising over Moscow’s increasingly assertive role in propping up Mr. Assad, its alleged interference in the U.S. presidential campaign and its earlier seizure of Crimea" (emphasis added; ). You can't have it both ways: either "alleged" is an expression of doubt, in which case the reliable sources doubt Russian interference, or "alleged" isn't an expression of doubt, in which case it's completely neutral. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My arguments would be similar to MjolnirPants's at 20:28 and 22:13, 9 January 2017. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post associate editor David Ignatius's opinion: The released report on Russian meddling isn’t enough – Allegations without proof are a bad mix that fosters speculation Jan 9. --Pudeo (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal
Since we clearly do not have the required consensus to move the article at this time, I suggest OP withdraw this and revisit the issue in a month or two, if desired. SPECIFICO talk  16:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How about letting the process run its course? The very fact that a lot of editors are commenting on what you called a "dead horse" issue is testament to the disputed nature of the current title. Frankly, and with all due respect to your positions, your constant attempts to police the discourse are tiresome. — JFG talk 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not policing it's trying to cure dysfunction and minimize futile misallocation of editors' time. Once it's clear that the consensus requirement cannot be met, no amount of further comment is going to change the outcome. That's why I think it would be more productive for us all to reconsider the title after a little time has passed.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to close early - keeping your preferred title and POV - is disruptive. We let all the earlier, totally absurd title change requests to run their course. Finally we're proposing to make a reasonable and much needed change. I'd like to see what everyone has to say - including people who aren't editing here at this page regularly. -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * With the current available information on the topic, what do you think are the chances of reaching a consensus on any change in the title? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Given the information available on the topic this article is meant to describe, I would think consensus would favor the title change. Given the discussion on the talk page, I think that the odds are pretty slim. -Darouet (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to close early - keeping your preferred title and POV - is disruptive. Is it as disruptive as a new RfM discussion every week? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly asking you to consider whether or not you think the non-stop bickering over this proposal (and it is just one proposal, made numerous times) is more disruptive than an editor suggesting we... You know, maybe stop arguing about it for a bit. Because -sorry to be so blunt- but the answer is really fucking obvious. Suggesting we wait a while is even a good thing for the "Yes" side, because it will give any hotheads on the opposing side time to calm down and reflect more sedately on whether or not the move is really such a bad thing. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  04:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I did consider a number of the previous move requests practically disruptive (I wouldn't go so far as to say they violated policy), because they ignored the major source of contention on this talk page since this article was first written: that these remain allegations made by senior US officials against the Russian government. Those previous move requests prevented us from formally proposing the much needed improvement so many editors have requested: a title that does not imply that we know for a fact the Russians interfered.


 * I understand that you are so convinced by statements by various officials, or the intelligence agencies, that it is ludicrous to doubt them. For my part however I consider them political actors just like the Russians. This consideration is supported not only by some knowledge of the history of these kind of pronouncements (e.g. WMD, an issue raised by some RS), but also by RS language that attributes the allegations to their sources. I acknowledge that some high quality RS - notably the NYT, and the WashPo - vacillate between describing interference as a fact, or as an allegation. However, the great number of articles that do attribute the allegations, and no not present interference as a fact, demand that we acknowledge this uncertainty here in our encyclopedia article. With all respect, the answer being "really fucking obvious" to you is an obstacle to recognizing the uncertainty that RS describe. Uncertainty which, I should point out, extends beyond RS to some substantial portion of the American population. -Darouet (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are so convinced by statements by various officials, or the intelligence agencies, that it is ludicrous to doubt them. You see, right there. That's where you go off the rails. I could not think of a worse caricature of what I've said here than that which would not be an unambiguous personal attack. Your 'understanding' is extremely flawed. You do not understand my arguments or positions in the slightest.
 * With all respect, the answer being "really fucking obvious" to you is an obstacle to recognizing the uncertainty that RS describe. This is (again) a vast misunderstanding of what I said. It's such a huge misinterpretation that I feel the need to ask if it would make any difference at all if I actually explained what I actually meant (even though it seems perfectly lucid and unambiguous to me), or if I should just drop it because you don't really care what I actually meant. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trump Dossier Alleges That Russia Targets Jewish-American Businessmen
http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.764452: Another report in the collection, dated September 14, 2016, focused on the relationship between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Alfa Group, the largest financial and industrial investment group in Russia. The company is headed by three Russian Jewish billionaires with ties to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jewish Agency head Natan Sharansky: Mikhail Fridman, Pyotr Aven and German Khan.

Alfa-Bank, founder Mikhail Fridman, has largely cut his links with the Russia where he made his billions. He has applied for permanent residency in the U.K. - --87.159.114.85 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, go on, add all that crap, you have a link, go for it. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope this is just a just a choice of words.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, do not add any of it. It isn't necessarily "crap", Govindaharihari and Slatersteven, but I do not believe it is relevant to the subject of this article. The Ha'aretz news story describes two separate reports in the dossier. The first is dated July 15, 2015. It states that Russia targeted Jewish American businessmen of Russian origin in a document titled “A Synopsis of Russian State Sponsored and Other Cyber Offensive (Criminal) Operations” and says: "The report asserts that the Russian intelligence bureau, known as the FSB, was approaching US citizens of Russian (Jewish) origin on business trips to Russia." This does not belong in an article about 2016 US election interference but rather, an article about Russian state-sponsored cyber attacks. This report has nothing to do with Alfa Group.


 * The second report is about the three Russian Jewish billionaires who own (manage? founded?) Alfa Group. They are not Americans. They are Israeli citizens. The report alleges that they gave global business and competitive intelligence advice to Putin. Some of the information may have been about the USA. This report is dated September 14, 2016. I do not believe that it belongs in this article either. It pertains to Russia and Israel, not to Russia and the United States, and there is no mention of the three Russian-Jewish billionaires having any influence over nor involvement with the 2016 US election. Also, it does not say when these three men were supposedly advising Putin.--FeralOink (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Allegations?

 * Aren't these just allegations for now? There isn't any proof that Russia was involved in the DNC leaks at all. Julian Assange denies it. Cybersecurity expert, James McAfee says it didn't happen. Many people have said this is just an effort to delegitimize Trump and box him in on foreign policy like the recount, and trying to get the electors to switch their vote and hammering in that he lost the popular vote. I'm just looking for nuance. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.54.222 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the source of your question has already been discussed above; additionally, discussion re Russia's interference with the US election has been raging on well past the electoral college's actual vote on 19 December, 2016 – so your latter argument is pretty void. Regards, —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 08:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 68.149.54.222@undefined, if you feel that way, you should consider either proposing a move, or commenting on a move proposal. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 02:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Balance
This is BALANCE that is sorely missing in this entire article. It needs a section describing WHAT was exposed by said interference. Many citizens would be happy to have that information regardless of who hacked it, others would prefer it have never been exposed, the point being the WHOLE story is NOT the Russians interfered it is more the Russians expose democratic party's misdeeds.Aceruss (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want the article to discuss the content of the leaks, here is what you should do: find a number of news articles (not opinion pieces) in reputable sources (think major newspapers) that discuss the contents of the leaks. Then list those sources below, and perhaps write a paragraph or two that summarizes those sources, using neutral language. I suspect that the inclusion of this topic will be contentious, so laying out your proposed addition here on the talk page first would be best. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is not about what was exposed by the emails stolen from the DNC. We already have an article about that.- MrX 12:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Surely some description of what is alleged to have been stolen in these hacks is relevant here. After all, the content of the leaks is integral to the accusation of election interference. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this article is really retarded and just repeatedly states that "U.S. officials were confident Russia had interfered with the election" followed by references. Where's the proof that Russia did? Seriously, stupid. This article, atleast the intro, needs to be re-written.  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 01:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please use the talk page to make constructive comments and read WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The title of this thread was "The FACT that democrats cheating, lying, unethical and unlawful behaviors were WHAT was exposed" and someone changed it to "balance". This is my POINT! The powers that be want everyone to be aware Russia interfered with U.S. elections by hacking, but what was it they hacked? SHHHHH keep it quiet, it was The democratic party's cheating, lying, unethical and unlawful behaviors! And there SHOULD BE a section explaining that in this aricle it is incomplete without itAceruss (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please use the talk page to make constructive comments and read WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Maybe instead of ranting against something that is not there, you should write it yourself? --65.95.14.16 (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If Adrian Chen's "observation" about a pattern of trolling can be quoted, then it would be reasonable to quote the Transition Team's characterization of the Intelligence Community's report
There's a section in the article entitled Russian troll's support for Trump, which starts off with this musing:


 * Adrian Chen observed a pattern in December 2015 where pro-Russian accounts became supportive of 2016 U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump.[41] Chen noted the trolls "have turned into conservatives, like fake conservatives... all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff", and wrote "maybe it's some really opaque strategy of like, electing Donald Trump to undermine the U.S. or something, like false flag kind of thing."[41][42]

If this is sort of speculation is appropriate, then surely the Transition Team's much more succinct reminder that the (presumed) originators of the election interference idea, were, after all, the same guys who proclaimed that Hussein had WMD should surely also merit quoting.

(What the article currently says is that Trump "rejected" the report and "attacked" the intelligence services. This is needlessly non-specific and i think incomplete enough to be misleading.  There are a lot of quotes in the article, but not sure there are any from the Transition Team.)

Son of eugene (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article. It's always a good idea to read the article before pointing out what's wrong with it.- MrX 12:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, great, thanks Mr. X. I searched for the string "WMD" and didn't see it, and so wrongly concluded that the quote wasn't in there. Son of eugene (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, they weren't "the same guys".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is strong opposition to this proposal, although there is some agreement that a more neutral title may be desirable. (non-admin closure) Brad  v  00:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – After numerous chaotic title changes for this article, the latest move request is not heading towards consensus, as Support arguments advocate better grammar, while Oppose arguments are aimed at the inconsistency between the title and the article contents, an issue that has been present ever since the article was created. WP:POVTITLE has been cited, arguing that the current title states Russian interference in the US elections as fact in WP voice, whereas the article contents and sources attribute the accusations to US intelligence reports and discuss other points of view as well.

Some alternative titles have been proposed in the discussion, and I would like to submit the (imho) most neutral one to a formal move request. Here is my evaluation of this proposal according to the five WP titling criteria:
 * Recognizability – The proposed title explicitly names the subject matter (interference in US elections), the alleged perpetrator (Russia) and the source of such allegations (intelligence reports), thereby accurately reflecting article contents and cited sources.
 * Naturalness – The proposed title is grammatically clearer and better worded than the current one.
 * Precision – The proposed title incorporates elements that have been debated earlier, i.e. the word "interference" rather than "involvement", the scope of 2016 US elections (not limited to the presidency), the discussion of Russia as the main focus of investigators and the attribution of accusations to intelligence reports. All these elements contribute to precision.
 * Conciseness – Prior discussions have established that we cannot remove any element of this title without appearing biased.
 * Consistency – In most election-related articles, the title does not begin with the year. As this event is rather exceptional, there is not much consistency to expect, although we could cite Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War and Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War as similarly-structured titles.

Let the discussion begin! — JFG talk 09:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Thank you for citing the five title criteria, but your assertions that your proposed title satisfies the first two of those criteria is easily refuted. First of all, this article is not about "intelligence reports"; it is about the much broader topic of Russian interference in the election, its impact, reaction, reports, congressional actions, executive actions, and so on. It would be like renaming Watergate scandal to Burglary arrests at the Watergate office complex.  Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is by far the better title. The main argument opposing it is WP:POVTITLE because Russia denies it. That's almost comical in that it ignores WP:V and the fact that sources overwhelmingly accept that Russia actually did actual interfere with the US elections. Unfortunately, we have editors who use POV to mean anything that deviates from their own personal point of view, and that is very wrong. When these oppose arguments are in the previous move request are appropriately discounted, as well as the suspicious vote by a user whose only edit in the past seven years was to the move request, I think it has a good chance of achieving consensus. Also, it's only been active for eight days, so creating another move request seems out of process.- MrX 12:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Move requests normally run for 7 days, so the one above should get closed soon, and I don't see how a reasonable closer would assess anything but "no consensus" given the state of the discussion, thus offering a new MR for consideration is legitimate, although I must admit it's a bit hasty on my part. Besides, you shouldn't have added a !vote in your own move request; the closer knows that you support yourself.
 * Regarding the meat of the matter, we obviously disagree about the current title's neutrality or lack thereof. Note that "Watergate scandal" isn't titled "Richard Nixon's spying activities on his political opponents" and Nixon White House tapes isn't titled "Nixon's destruction of evidence in the Watergate scandal", although strong facts have been established in this historical case. At this point in the "Russia is undermining US elections" story, we don't know if Russia intervened and how, we know that US intelligence agencies say so and that Russian government denies it. We know that Democrats accuse Russia of leaking their emails and that WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 say Russia is not the source. We know that Trump was elected and that many people have done and will do whatever they can to make him appear illegitimate. Most importantly in my opinion, we know that both Trump and Putin want to rebuild confidence in relations between their countries whereas their political opponents want to pursue an adversarial strategy and continue the defiant posturing on both sides as in the heydays of the Cold War (which, being neither Russian nor American, worries me). All of this is great WP:FORUM material but shouldn't influence how we name articles. And when I read this article again and again, it talks mostly about which intelligence agency said what when, and how various politicians reacted, but it's quite short on discussing the actual interference process or evidence thereof. Hence my proposal to focus on "intelligence reports" in the title as well. The proposed title doesn't discredit those reports and it doesn't call the interference "alleged", so I believe that it is the most neutral title that has been floated so far. — JFG talk 21:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an important difference between the hacking in the 2016 US election and the Watergate scandal. In the latter case, we know exactly what happened. The sources are certain that the Watergate break-in was part of Nixon's re-election campaign, that the Nixon administration attempted a cover-up, etc. In the 2016 election, most reliable sources do not claim certainty about what happened. They describe claims by the US intelligence agencies or cybersecurity firms that Russia was involved in the DNC hacks and Podesta email leaks, but unlike in the case of Watergate, most sources do not claim to know whether those allegations are true. Maybe with years (or less) of hindsight, we'll know as much about the hacks during the 2016 election as we do about the Watergate break-in and cover-up, but right now, our certainty about 2016 isn't anywhere near what it is for Watergate. Again, reliable sources report on US intelligence claims that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta's emails, they report on cybersecurity firms' assessments, they report on Russian denials of involvement, and they report on Assange's claims that the leaks did not come from Russia. We can cover all those claims, with appropriate attribution to US intelligence agencies, cybersecurity firms, the Russian government, Julian Assange, and so on. But we shouldn't have a title which implies that US intelligence claims are correct. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose for all the reasons identified by MrX. Additionally, this should not have been opened as a separate requested move, but rather should be added to the already-existed requested move as an alternative proposal, so editors may discuss the competing proposals side-by-side. Neutralitytalk 13:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Move requests with several proposals tend to get bogged down and end up inconclusive. It's much easier and efficient to decide on a particular title proposal. — JFG talk 21:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per the arguments above, and per the simple fact that the RSes are reporting Russian involvement (and have been since August at least). This is clearly yet another attempt to whitewash deprecate Russia's involvement. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your WP:Aspersions are not constructive. — JFG talk 21:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignoring for now the fact that I did not cast any aspersions, your response is 'equally' nonconstructive. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is this not an aspersion? "This is clearly yet another attempt to whitewash Russia's involvement." You should strike through that statement in your above comment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ASPERSIONS and dictionary.com - aspersion are how. I made a comment about this proposal while implying that it was one of multiple reasons why I disagree with the proposal in the context of explaining the previous sentence. The fact that it offended you in some way is frankly, not my problem. WP:AGF and get over it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You accused of trying to "whitewash Russia's involvement." That's a direct statement about 's supposed motives, and therefore an aspersion on that user. I did assume good faith initially, but you can't openly accuse another editor of trying to whitewash the article and then protest that others should assume your good faith. You should see the irony in your position: accusing another editor of trying to whitewash the article, and then protesting that others don't assume good faith on your part. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You might have had a point if the proposed title wasn't yet another in a long line of proposals which exclude any reference to Russia. You might have had a point if JFG hadn't previously made clear his views on the current title. You might have had a point if I had called him out explicitly, or implied that he shouldn't be allowed to edit this article, or impugned upon his reputation or character in any way, or done literally anything else covered under WP policy. You might have had a point if I hadn't already made a good faith effort to appease you even after making it clear that I think your complaint is bunk. Finally, you might have had a point if you'd literally discussed any part of this proposal in any way in this section instead of derailing the whole thing with this pointless bickering. At this point, you're the one being disruptive because you insist upon holding to your own interpretation of what I meant in the face of me explicitly telling you otherwise, then using that as an excuse to derail this discussion. After this, I got no more use for ya, sweetheart. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When you accuse other editors of trying to whitewash the article, you poison the editing environment here. You can't simply make such accusations, and then turn around and try to use WP:AGF as an argument that others shouldn't ask you to withdraw those accusations. It's positive that you've struck through "whitewash" now, and I hope that the conversation here will remain focused on content, rather than on accusations about editors' motives. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is this yet another in a long line of proposals which exclude any reference to Russia? The proposed title explicitly mentions Russia. In the previous MR, . And indeed I am not whitewashing or deprecating anything, just trying to find a title that reflects article contents. Would you care to address my arguments for a title change instead of questioning my motives? — JFG talk 02:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn! You caught me! I got a bit hyperbolic and said "exclude" when I should have said "downplay" which makes my whole argument invalid! Worse, it makes my whole world view invalid! Oh the shame! The shaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmeeeee!!!!!!!!!!11!1!!1`!!!1!11``111!!oneoneone.
 * Actually, because it shifts the subject from "Russian interference" to "Intelligence reports". Not sure why you're asking me this; I'm sure you were quite aware of it when you came up with this proposal. If not, then you're essentially admitting that you didn't understand that the subject of the article is not the intelligence reports specifically, but the interference itself. This would bespeak a level of ignorance which I would not ascribe to you, given your level of participation here.
 * I actually had one of my trademark giant walls of text here, but I deleted it because I'm sure no-one wants to read it. Suffice it to say, regarding your second sentence: There's a world of different between "questioning your motives" and making a separate point that incidentally implies that your intent happens to be something you said yourself was your intent. If you happen to get offended at the notion that someone thinks you're trying to accomplish something you've previously said you're trying to accomplish, then you go right ahead and get as offended as you want. I ain't gonna stop ya. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  04:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the humorous disclaimer; glad we can both AGF each other. Now I hear your disagreement about shifting the title's focus from Russian interference to reports thereof. And I would be perfectly happy with the title if the prose actually discussed not the intelligence reports specifically, but the interference itself. But have you read the article? The lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the whole thing, talks only about those intelligence reports and reactions to them. Not a word on what Russians did to influence the election(s), except "CIA said Russia is the source of DNC leaks". So either we rewrite the article or we adopt an appropriate title. This is the whole extent of my intent. — JFG talk 05:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * glad we can both AGF each other.Took ya long enough... I admit that I enjoy winning an argument from time to time, but this almost feels like you're sabotaging yourself. So there's...
 * the last two sentences of the lead,
 * the entire second paragraph of the lead,
 * the entire "Background" section,
 * the entire "Cybersecurity analysis" section,
 * the entire "Government response" section,
 * and the entire "Commentary and reactions" section.
 * I suppose an article about the reports would likely have a "Government response" sections and a "Commentary and reactions" section, and probably a "Background" section as well (though not necessarily). But those sections wouldn't read like the ones in the article, especially the background section. And of course, that doesn't change that they're not about the intelligence reports, nor are they limited to reactions to the intelligence reports. They're about the background to the interference, the government response to the interference and the reports and the commentary and reactions to the interference and the reports. In fact, the only parts of the article which are about the intelligence reports are the first few sentences of the lead and the U.S. intelligence analysis section. And if the article were about the reports.. Why would it need a dedicated section about the reports?
 * And of course, there are the all-important sources. Have you read any of the sources? Wait, I think you've already answered that. Well, you should. The sources talk predominantly about the actual interference with the reports being just one aspect of the story. So yeah, you're just plain wrong. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  07:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please start treating your fellow editors with some civility? The disrespectful way you write above doesn't do anything to help us achieve consensus. It just serves to poison the environment here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Since there are multiple requests to change the article's title, it might be better to close these discussions and start a Request for Comment so we can reach a consensus title. FallingGravity 22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. There are too many proposed moves that don't get consensus, and a lot of the reason for that is the variety of proposals for the new name. I don't have much hope that such an RfC would produce a consensus, but I have no hope that continuous proposals to move will ever reach one. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nyet - Doesn't reflect mainstream content or article subject. SPECIFICO  talk  23:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am not much of a fan of the current title, and like the proposed one even less.  I'd choose something with the word "hacking" since it's in virtually every headline on the subject, and there was definitely a hacking involved, whether a government involved or not.  Perhaps "Russian hacking during the 2016 United States elections"? --RaffiKojian (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name of the article should be a no-brainer now: Grizzly Steppe. FallingGravity 06:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the reasons cited by MrX. --Tataral (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that the current title is highly POV, but the title proposed above is too long. I prefer Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, which proposed above. We are talking about allegations, rather than something that is known with certainty to be true, and those allegations are of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * According to reliable sources, they are not "allegations," but proven facts, so for Wikipedia's purposes they are not allegations. --Tataral (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. Most reliable sources attribute these claims to specific parties: US intelligence or certain cybersecurity firms. They don't state Russian interference as a fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, no, *that* is not true. It's possible for sources to BOTH attribute the phenomenon AND state it as fact. I gave some examples here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current title is quite clear and accurate. Every authoritative body has said Russia interfered, it is not "allegations", there are no credible organization saying they didn't interfere. Russia's denial means nothing of course they would deny it. -- Green  C  16:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I showed below, reliable sources are not treating the claims of US intelligence as fact. They are being very careful to attribute claims of Russian hacking or interference to US intelligence or US government officials. Intelligence agencies are not authoritative bodies, but rather highly political agencies that act on behalf of the US government. We have to go by what reliable sources, like reputable newspapers, write. Reliable sources treat "Russian hacking" as a claim being made by US intelligence and US officials, rather than as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - redirect already exists with the new title which should suffice. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The title puts the responsibility where it belongs, according to numerous experts and RS, never mind how many times Mr. Peskov uses the word "ridiculous".  This combined expert opinion/RS hasn't made it into the article as a reference (yet):  Thomas Rid, How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History,  Oct 20, 2016, Esquire.   I also agree with MrX that "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" would be better (if for no other reason than style - active voice is preferable to passive), but that discussion seems to have been closed rather arbitrarily. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above. Also, I agree that the current title should be changed to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it is too limiting (not reflecting the article content), and is still pov, presenting what are allegations to be facts. The previously mentioned Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is still the best option I have seen. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Allegations vs. Fact: Considering Verifiability Carefully
There's been a lot of argument here as to whether Russian interference in the 2016 US elections is an allegation or a fact. This boils down to how reliable sources describe the subject. If they describe it as a known fact, then we can treat it as such. If they describe it as something that is alleged by specific parties, then we should treat it as allegations, and attribute those allegations to whoever made them.

So in that spirit, I'll just list the top three hits I got from a Google News search of "Russian interference in us election":


 * The Guardian: Obama expels 35 Russian diplomats as part of sanctions for US election hacking: This article attributes the claim to US intelligence services: "US intelligence services believe Russia ordered cyber-attacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hillary Clinton’s campaign and other political organizations, in an attempt to influence the election in favor of the Republican candidate, Donald Trump." It also cites Trump's dismissal of the claim: "On Thursday, Trump, who has previously dismissed reports of Russian interference in the election, said in a statement: 'It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things.'"
 * Washington Post: Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference: The Washington Post is pretty clear: "The Obama administration announced sweeping new measures against Russia on Thursday in retaliation for what U.S. officials have characterized as interference in this fall’s presidential election." The claim is attributed to "U.S. officials."
 * Reuters: U.S. evicts Russians for spying, imposes sanctions after election hacks: Reuters attributes the claim to US intelligence officials: "Obama, a Democrat, had promised consequences after U.S. intelligence officials blamed Russia for hacks intended to influence the 2016 election. Officials pointed the finger directly at Russian President Vladimir Putin for personally directing the efforts and primarily targeting Democrats, who put pressure on Obama to respond," and "U.S. intelligence agencies say Russia was behind hacks into Democratic Party organizations and operatives ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. U.S. intelligence officials say the Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton." The article also covers Trump's dismissal of those claims: "Trump has brushed aside allegations from the CIA and other intelligence agencies that Russia was behind the cyber attacks." It also covers Russia's denials of the allegations: "Moscow denies the hacking allegations."

I didn't cherry-pick these articles. I literally took the top three hits from Google News. From my general reading, these results are representative of major English-language news outlets. They generally attribute the claims specifically, and so should we. That implies that a title change is in order, to remove the impression that we're stating the allegations to be unequivocally correct. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As I point out above, just because something is attributed to some agency does not make it an "allegation". It could, but not necessarily. If I say "according to Andrew Wiles, Fermat's Last Theorem is indeed a valid theorem", I am attributing it to Wiles, but it doesn't mean that the proof is only "alleged" and not actually true. On that note, here is New York Times "president Obama struck back at Russia on Thursday for its efforts to influence the 2016 election". So it is indeed stated as fact, not an allegation.
 * Likewise just because Trump calls it "an allegation" that does not mean that that is all that it is. Which is exactly why we go by (secondary) sources, not the words of politicians.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Most reliable sources (as evidenced above and below) are very careful to attribute the claim that Russia interfered in US elections specifically to the people and agencies that have made those claims. There's a reason that reliable sources are being careful about that attribution, rather than stating the claims as fact. I think we should go with how the large majority of reliable sources treat the claims. As I said, I chose the top three English-language articles arising from a Google search, and the top hit for Le Monde and top hit for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, so I should have a pretty representative sample. We're dealing with small-number statistics here, but five out of five articles chosen by that unbiased process carefully attribute the claims of Russian interference. If that's the case, then we should do so as well, rather than treating Russian interference as a fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I know this probably isn't completely kosher, but I thought it might also be useful to see how international media is covering the hacks, to see how they're treating the claims of Russian hacking. I figure it can't hurt, so I'll just give the results I get for a major German and French newspaper.


 * Süddeutsche Zeitung: USA weisen nach Hacker-Attacke 35 russische Diplomaten aus: The Süddeutsche Zeitung (one of Germany's two major newspapers) clearly attributes the claims of Russian hacking to the US government: "Die Maßnahmen richten sich gegen den russischen Militärgeheimdienst GRU und den Inlandsgeheimdienst FSB, die die USA für Hackerangriffe auf Computer politischer Organisationen verantwortlich machen."


 * Le Monde: Obama sanctionne la Russie, accusée d’avoir voulu « influencer » la présidentielle: Le Monde (one of France's two major newspapers) attributes the claims of Russian hacking to US officials, whenever those claims are mentioned. For example, in the opening to the article, "Le président américain, Barack Obama, a annoncé, jeudi 29 décembre, avoir lancé des sanctions contre la Russie, dont « les cyberactivités avaient pour but d’influencer l’élection » présidentielle américaine de novembre 2016." The article also covers Russian denials of involvement: "Un peu plus tard, le porte-parole du Kremlin, Dmitri Peskov, cité par l’agence de presse publique RIA Novosti, a annoncé que la Russie rejetait « catégoriquement » ces « accusations infondées »."

Again, apologies for the foreign-language sources, but I think it is helpful to see that international media is also attributing claims of Russian hacking very specifically to the US government. Again, I didn't cherry-pick these articles. I typed in what I thought were the most relevant search phrases for this subject ("sueddeutsche russland us wahl" and "le monde russie elections"), and picked the first article (published in the last 24 hours) that popped up from the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of picking sources that simply don't disagree with your claim that this is nothing more than an allegation, why don't you try to find some sources that explicitly state that it's not certain whether Russia was involved/the attacks actually happened/whatever the hell else you're complaining about? We've got sources that state it as fact explicitly (VM gave you one), and lots more sources that discuss the subject as if it were a certain without bothering to explicitly say so. There's a lot of reason to state this as a fact, and only a couple of weak arguments for stating it as the opinion of damn near every expert that's weighed in on it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, I did not cherry pick sources. I chose sources by doing a Google News search for the relevant terms, and picking the first three articles that popped up. I also picked the first Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde articles that popped up in a search. So instead of looking for articles that support one outcome or another, I chose them in an unbiased fashion. The result was that all five articles were very careful not to state Russian interference or hacking as a fact, but rather specifically attributed claims of Russian interference to US agencies or officials. Since the reliable sources are careful to treat these claims as just that, claims, we should as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

One more time - just because something is attributed does not make it "alleged". I mean, who other than intelligence agencies is suppose to be making the assessment that Russia interfered in US elections? The US Department of Health and Human Services? The National Endowment for the Arts? Team Nutrition? OF COURSE sources are are going to say "according to US intelligence community". Just like when discussing, I don't know, the dangers of smoking tobacco they might say "According to the Surgeon General of the US...". That doesn't mean that the dangers of smoking tobacco are "alleged".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, who other than intelligence agencies is suppose to be making the assessment that Russia interfered in US elections? I'm going to go with Dis guy. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And again, there's a reason why reliable sources are careful to attribute the claims of Russian hacking to US intelligence and officials. They aren't treating it as a proven fact, but rather as a claim made by certain agencies and individuals. You ask, "who other than intelligence agencies is suppose to be making the assessment that Russia interfered in US elections?" The answer is "reliable sources," like reputable newspapers. The intelligence agencies are not reliable sources, and the reliable sources we have are overwhelmingly treating claims of Russian hacking as something that US officials and agencies claim, rather than as fact. I've shown that five of five randomly chosen articles carefully attribute the claims, rather than treating them as fact. So should we. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are some technical details here as described here. 35 diplomats are sent away because of that (sorry, I am using Russian publications). This is all a highly notable fact. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is simply not the case that the majority of mainstream sources doubt the assessment of the US Government that Russian officials hacked for the purpose of disrupting the US election. This should not be controversial to any editor who approaches this article from the touchstone of WP sourcing policy. I'm not saying that the Russians have sent editors to WP or anything. I mean they might have, but we have no evidence that they did. Of course they did in the past, but I haven't seen anybody link to a source that says they did it this year. We would do better to improve the detail and narrative of this article than to deny the central fact.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I just showed that five of five somewhat randomly chosen articles from reliable sources carefully attribute claims of Russian hacking or interference to the specific agencies that made those claims. They don't treat it as a fact, but rather as something that specific people/agencies have claimed. Does anyone care to actually recognize that, or to respond to it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's not the three top hits I get.
 * http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/russian-hack-donald-trump-2016-election/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-29/u-s-hits-russian-officials-with-sanctions-over-election-hacks
 * As the US government has not explicitly stated (and acted upon) that Russia did hack and it was aimed at helping Putin it's all rather moot.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One of those articles (the Guardian one) is in the top three hits I got. The other two do, however, also treat Russian interference as a claim made by US intelligence. The CNN article goes over what different notable people are saying about the issue, without stating any view to be factual. The Bloomberg article very explicitly treats Russian involvement as an allegation made by the US government:
 * "Russia vowed a 'proportional' response after President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S. and imposed sanctions on top intelligence officials and agencies over cyberattacks allegedly backed by the Kremlin and aimed at interfering with the 2016 election campaign."
 * So between our findings, the count is that seven of seven articles carefully attribute the claims of Russian interference to US intelligence and officials. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Chancellor Marek did just respond above. Perhaps you could address his refutation of your claim? SPECIFICO  talk  17:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Marek is arguing that we should treat claims of Russian interference in the US election differently from how most reliable sources treat those claims. He's arguing that just because most reliable sources carefully attribute the claim, rather than stating it to be true, we shouldn't do the same. For someone who claims to want to go by the reliable sources, that position is baffling to me. Reliable sources, as shown above (by seven randomly chosen articles), consistently treat Russian hacking as a claim made by the US government. So should we. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Marek is claiming that you're wrong about how the sources treat the accusations. Don't put words in another editor's mouth when they have explicitly told you quite the opposite of what you claim they said. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , again, watch how you talk to other editors. I think I accurately described Marek's position. They've said that even though reliable sources are careful to attribute claims of Russian interference to US intelligence and officials, we should treat such claims as fact. Again, I think we should go with how the sources treat these claims - as allegations made by the US government, which are as yet unproven. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. You missed the point, either purposefully or otherwise. And the point is that just because sources "attribute" the info to the intelligence community does not make the info "alleged". I thought I was pretty clear on that. Or another way. You can BOTH attribute a statement and treat it as fact. "There are at least four moons orbiting Jupiter, the largest of which were discovered by Galileo". Or should it be" Galileo made the allegations that there were at least four moons orbiting Jupiter"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the suggested improvement to the article?


 * Not sure who I'm replying to, but the suggested improvement is to change the title to one that doesn't imply Russian interference in the US elections is an established fact. The other point is to generally make editors here aware that these claims are not generally being treated as fact in reliable sources. That will have implications more broadly for how editors here modify the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This article faces the issue of how to deal with propaganda when your touchstone is WP:RS. Clearly there has been an effort to adjudicate two routine incidents, i.e., the successful phishing of John Podesta's and the DNC e-mail accounts, into a concerted campaign to discredit a U.S. election and its outcome.  The old propaganda aphorism is working: if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.  As Thucydides411 has carefully proven, the propaganda effort has succeeded to the point that the WP:RS clarify only once (in their own voice) that it is all an allegation, and struggle with the awkwardness of further clarifying on each heading, and each paragraph that the underlying issue is an allegation.  And so the propaganda effort wins, and has probably won already, until historians properly re-assess the issue, a generation o three from now. XavierItzm (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

How the sources treat the subject

 * Note that a couple of those have appeared in this thread already. The authors of these articles clearly go back and forth between describing them as allegations and describing them in factual terms. This is because there is no doubt in the minds of anyone who doesn't have a political POV to push that Russia hacked the DNC during the election season. There may be some doubt as to their motivations (whether or not they intended to help Trump win or simply disrupt them), but there is no real doubt expressed anywhere in the RSes that this was state sponsored hacking by Russia. So even if most of the sources point out that the CIA and others have accused Russia of doing this, that doesn't imply or require that the accusations are unproven. This has been explained many times. The Clinton campaign was accused of colluding with the DNC to deny Bernie Sanders a victory in the primaries. Does that mean there's any doubt that they did those things? No. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Half the sources you've listed aren't reliable, and most of the others attribute the claims to the US government. -Darouet (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already addressed your arguments below or above. So have others. I'm not repeating myself because you can't be bothered to read them. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You've "addressed" them, but your statements and those of others distort what reliable sources actually relate. I'm not asking you to respond further. -Darouet (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason to call them allegations is that no evidence has been presented (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that it hasn't been presented) (and that includes today's JAR, which is notoriously thin on data). As time goes by, either the evidence will show up or this whole matter will be relegated to the status of speculation. It's really got nothing to do with the claim being put forward by intelligence agencies, rather with its being as of yet unsupported. There is no doubt that there were cyberattacks, there is no doubt that cyberattacks don't happen without a perpetrator, but that's not evidence that a specific foreign government did it, nor - especially - that it was done with the purpose of helping one of the candidates. What RS present as a FACT is that the intelligence community SAYS Russia was behind it. RS also present as a fact that religious peeps believe in a god - that's not the same as presenting that given god as a fact.88.157.194.238 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, first, a question: how did you select these sources? When I compiled my above list, I didn't set out to select sources with any specific opinion. I entered very general search terms into Google and chose the top results. I did that in order to remove my own biases in how I might personally select sources.
 * Next, we can disregard two of those sources, TechCruch and the CrowdStrike blog, which are not reliable sources. I cited reputable newspapers (plus Reuters, a respected wire agency) above - not tech blogs. These are sources of exceedingly poor quality, and they definitely do not belong in this discussion.
 * Thirdly, I think you're mischaracterizing two of the sources:
 * The Guardian - Obama expels 35 Russian diplomats in retaliation for US election hacking: This source only talks about Russian interference in the context of American government statements. The quotation you give is paraphrasing Obama's reasoning for expelling diplomats, but when the Guardian itself raises those claims, it is careful to attribute them to the people making them - US intelligence, for example.
 * Washington Post: Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference: The same goes for this article. Again, only in describing the US government's rationale does the WP talk about Russian interference. The WP does not, itself, state those claims to be true, but rather carefully attributes them. It's right there in the first sentence of the article, where the WP clearly sets up Russian "interference" as a characterization made by "U.S. officials."
 * I don't think cherry picking articles, or misrepresenting their description of the Obama administration's rationale as the voice of the newspaper, is helpful here. As I've shown above, seven somewhat randomly chosen articles from reputable newspapers do not treat the claims as facts, but rather as allegations made by American intelligence and American officials. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, you also misinterpreted the statement in the first Guardian article you posted about "overwhelming evidence." That was in reference to Russian involvement in Eastern Ukraine, not in the US election. You cut the sentence off at just the right point to miss what it was saying: "[...] despite overwhelming evidence and the Kremlin’s admission that it has helped rebels in eastern Ukraine." So we can strike that article from your above list, as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, first, a question: how did you select these sources? By randomly grabbing sources from this discussion and the article, then checking to see if they ever mentioned the incident without framing it as an allegation. I left out one source that never did that.
 * When I compiled my above list, I didn't set out to select sources with any specific opinion. I don't believe for one second that you just put all your previous beliefs aside and took a truly neutral approach, purely to find out if you were right, and were shocked to discover that, yes, indeed, you have been right all along! Not for one second. You and I both know damn well that you went looking for sources to support your argument.
 * Next, we can disregard two of those sources, TechCruch and the CrowdStrike blog, which are not reliable sources. Bullshit. This is exactly what both of those groups do for a living. They are experts in cybersecurity, and their opinion is an expert opinion.
 * This source only talks about Russian interference in the context of American government statements. Do you understand that's the introductory sentence? There is no established context which changes the meaning of the phrase. The article opens by referring to "...Russian efforts to interfere with the US presidential election..." without ever qualifying that statement.
 * Again, only in describing the US government's rationale does the WP talk about Russian interference. No, this is quite the opposite case. This article opens by referring to the allegations, then makes numerous references to the incident without qualification. it makes references to reactions and hacks that date back to well before the CIA announcement, as well. At no point does it ever express any doubt over the accuracy of the claims, nor ever even imply that the facts are not yet known.
 * By the way, you also misinterpreted the statement in the first Guardian article Do you know what the word "and" means? Seriously, your response hinges upon ignoring the obvious use of that word. I took it from a paragraph that was about Russian response to the hacks, not about Russia's involvement in the Ukraine. The sentence reads (in full, with emphasis added) "The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has claimed Russia does not meddle in other countries’ domestic affairs, despite overwhelming evidence and the Kremlin’s admission that it has helped rebels in eastern Ukraine." I cut off the quote right before the word "and" for a reason; the rest of the sentence is an entirely different clause, a different item in the list. In case you can't puzzle it out: there are two (count em, two) items in a list following the opening statement. It read: "Russia said X despite Y and Z." The "overwhelming evidence" being referred to is overwhelming evidence that Russia interferes in other country's domestic affairs. The fact that the article never qualifies this part this with any links (despite using another link in that very sentence), nor any aside shows that it refers to the only subject that, if left unsaid, would make sense: the Russian hacks. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I chose sources exactly as I said. It may surprise you, but I'm not here to support any particular political party or country. I'm here to try to make the article reflect reliable sources. When I say I chose sources according to a certain procedure, I'm telling you exactly how I chose them. I resent you calling me a liar, and would appreciate it if you struck through those comments.
 * As for the first Guardian article you cited, I'm fairly certain you misinterpreted the quote you gave: "The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has claimed Russia does not meddle in other countries' domestic affairs, despite overwhelming evidence and the Kremlin's admission that it has helped rebels in eastern Ukraine." The word "and" is not just used to separate clauses. I think it's pretty clear that if we were to expand out the above sentence to make it more explicit, it would read, "The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has claimed Russia does not meddle in other countries' domestic affairs, despite overwhelming evidence [that it has helped rebels in eastern Ukraine] and the Kremlin's admission that it has helped rebels in eastern Ukraine." Instead of repeating the last phrase twice ("that it has helped rebels in eastern Ukraine"), the author writes it only once, which I think is still clear and is obviously more succinct. The author is writing that there is overwhelming evidence "that [Russia] has helped rebels in eastern Ukraine" and that the Kremlin has admitted "that [Russia] has helped rebels in eastern Ukraine." Given that the sentence doesn't mention hacking in the 2016 US elections at all, I think the interpretation I give is obviously what the author meant.
 * Finally, we can't use company blogs and a low-quality publication like TechCruch to make factual claims that reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) don't. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources are very clear that (1) there was a hack and (2) Russia was behind it. Sources are not hesitant to express these two views as established fact in their own voice. There may be some uncertainty as to whether the hacking was done with the intention of getting Trump elected, or merely done to discredit the process, both within the USG and within reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's easy to say, but when I actually lined up a random assortment of reliable sources and looked what they said, they didn't claim that Russia was behind the hacks. They said that US officials and intelligence agencies were claiming that Russia was behind the hack. I actually did the work above to go see what a representative sample of reliable sources say, and the response so far seems to be to just ignore the conclusions. A lot of editors here are a lot more certain on Russian involvement than reputable newspapers are. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the same sources you gave above. There is no sign of any skepticism of the fact that Russia is behind the hacks, and they take it as established fact. They quote officials as sources, but repeat the assertion in their own voices, including both titles.
 * For example, the Guardian: The Obama administration on Thursday announced its retaliation for Russian efforts to interfere with the US presidential election, ordering sweeping new sanctions that included the expulsion of 35 Russians. Here Guardian treats as a fact that Russia interfered with the election in some way. There is some lingering uncertainty as to the Russians' intent, which is shown in the next line: US intelligence services believe Russia ordered cyber-attacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hillary Clinton’s campaign and other political organizations, in an attempt to influence the election in favor of the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. Bolding is mine. Guardian attributes that POV to US intelligence services. Some readers might be tempted to think that Guardian was casting doubt on the prior assertion that Russia is involved, but there is no basis for that in the actual text. To apply Guardian's doubts on motive (why they did it) to matters of fact (whether they did it) is an error. Geogene (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's clear in the first line that the Guardian is paraphrasing the Obama administration's rationale for the sanctions against Russia. The alternate formulation, The Obama administration on Thursday announced its retaliation for Russian efforts [asserted by US intelligence agencies] to interfere with the US presidential election, is very awkward. To most readers, given that the claim is attributed everywhere else in the article, and given that the above sentence is discussing the Obama administration's rationale, it should be clear that the above sentence is stating the view of the Obama administration. Other newspapers really do use the more awkward formulation to make this as explicit as possible (see, for example, the awkward formulation in the Süddeutsche Zeitung above, which comes to something like, "The measures are directed against the Russian military intelligence agency GRU and the domestic intelligence agency FSB, to which the USA assigns responsibility for hacking attacks against computers of political organizations"). When the claim is explicitly attributed everywhere but in the description of the Obama admin's rationale, I think we have to assume that the newspapers are doing so because that's their editorial line - to attribute these claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. If that were what they intended to say, that is what they would have written. Anything more than that is ESP. Geogene (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't insert words into quotes in order to decide what the author really meant. We take it as a given that the author meant exactly what they said. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading articles carefully is not WP:OR. You're trying to interpret a paraphrase of the Obama administration's rationale for sanctions as a statement of fact by the author, which is inconsistent with how the author treats the claims by the Obama admin throughout the article. I can see a very strong desire on your part, MjolnirPants, to interpret these articles as if the authors were agreeing with your conviction that Russia is behind the leaks, but most papers apparently have an editorial line that requires them to attribute such claims, rather than making them as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading articles carefully is not WP:OR. No, it's not. I suggest you start doing it, then. You're not going to shove words into a sentence to change its meaning then tell me that all you're doing is "carefully reading" it. Try that bullshit on someone else, it doesn't work on me. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder,, if you're capable of discussing this article without constantly letting your foul mouth run on. I've asked you nicely enough times to cut the abusive language and accusations, but now you're really wearing out your welcome here.
 * About the sentence we're discussing, I don't think you can interpret it as a statement by the Guardian, in the voice of the newspaper, that the allegations made by US intelligence and officials are true. In the sentence in question, the Guardian is describing Obama's rationale for sanctions, so it's a real stretch to claim that they're stating the newspaper's opinion on the veracity of the Obama admin's allegations. If the Guardian wanted to make such a statement, it would be very simple. They could write, for example, "During the 2016 US Presidential election, Russia hacked DNC servers and Podesta's email account, and leaked information to the press through Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0." But they don't write anything straightforward of that sort, so we're left parsing their language to determine whether their description of the Obama administration's rationale implies they agree with it. You're going on very weak sourcing, which requires a highly dubious reading of the Guardian's article. If this were as clear as you think, we wouldn't be here arguing over the exact implications of the Guardian sentence at issue. There isn't any clear statement by the Guardian of Russian culpability in that article, and the same goes for most reliable sources. Given that most reliable sources are refraining from declaring the allegations of Russian involvement to be true, we should as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I wonder, MjolnirPants, if you're capable of discussing this article without constantly letting your foul mouth run on. I've asked you nicely enough times to cut the abusive language and accusations, but now you're really wearing out your welcome here. SO, not only are you constantly prattling on about me personally instead of addressing the content, you're resorting to personal attacks now? Nice. Really helps to make your point for you. As the for rest of your comment: I've literally already addressed everything you said. Your inability to either read or understand my comments is not my problem. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  03:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

At least one source has directly addressed "How the sources treat the subject issue. Matt Taibi of the Rolling Stone writes:  "Some news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations."  It may be worth considering including in the article something about the very debate we are having here, namely, the different levels of attributing Russian action, with some sources such as the NY Times unequivocally calling it "Russian hacking" while other sources continue to equivocate.  Marteau (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's room in the article for a sentence or two about that article. Obviously, we can't put any of our own commentary about this issue, but a Rolling Stone author writing about it seems WP:DUE. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A careful analysis of available WP:RS shows that the vast majority of U.S. papers attribute the claim to US officials and agencies - that this is also the approach taken by international media - and that RS declarations of Russian culpability as fact are either haphazard, or in the context of describing the US position. This has been a straightforward issue since this article was first created, and we need to continue trying to bring the article title back in line with policy. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to ask: Where are the RSes that express any doubt over whether Russian hackers interfered in the election? Where are the RSes that describe the allegations as "unproven" or that call out the absence of any evidence? The vast majority of reliable sources treat the claims as if they are true. They attribute the claims to the government (and the cybersecurity firms which keep getting ignored here) because it was the allegations that brought this story to light. But nowhere in the RSes that I've examined are they treated with anything less than total credulity. The idea that we must be incredulous because of the literary quirks of journalism is ridiculous.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States election
As I've stated before, the title of this article currently takes allegations that are attributed in major newspapers, and inappropriately converts Russian culpability for these leaks into a fact. To the many users who've expressed this same concern on this talk page, including, would you support the proposed title Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States election ? Also, when we propose an article title change, is it appropriate to also post a notice at WP:NPOVN or some other large, neutral venue to attract discussion from a large number of uninvolved, experienced editors? -Darouet (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. canvass much? I don't see a single ping to any user who has expressed doubt about this proposal (which has been proposed before and failed to gain consensus). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The proper process is to open a new move request (supposing the 3 currently open ones would fail and be closed). Posting at WP:NPOV/N may be appropriate as well, but can be done independently of the move request, as the neutrality dispute on this article goes beyond the titling discussion. And indeed, one-sided WP:CANVASSing shouldn't happen… — JFG talk 16:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * it would be absurd to ask those who maintain the allegations are fact for their opinion as to what title best summarizes the allegations. If I were calling for a vote, I'd ping everyone who'd participated in the page, or none of them. -Darouet (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So not just canvassing, but blatant, self-admitted canvassing, complete with excuses. For the record; I'd actually prefer a different title than the one we have now. I don't like the "by Russia" bit, and I'm not completely convinced that the word "Russia" even needs to be in the title. But I also don't think the arguments presented in this thread and the previous one hold any water at all. Your side of the argument has dismissed sources which fit perfectly well into the RS framework, has altered quotes to make their point, has argued that tricks of prose constitute implications of logic, has attempted to derail arguments into personal squabbles, has made bald assertions without bothering to back them up with anything and has engaged in numerous other rhetorical tricks that set off every WP:POV alarm I've developed in my time here. And now you're adding canvassing to your list of tactics. Everything I've seen on this talk page from the right-wing side of the political isle just screams "wedge strategy!" at the top of its lungs. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I honestly want to know what the best title is that accurately reflects that these are allegations, whether they're true or not. Your comments now constitute the vast bulk of the section I created to ask that question, but don't address it. I'll think about your suggestion that the title might exclude the word "Russia," though given the content of this article, I'm skeptical. I can respond more shortly. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I literally just addressed the issue of the article title (in a way that should, by all rights appeal to you no less), and you're whining about me not addressing it? Really? And if you "honestly" wanted to know, you'd have not exclusively pinged a group whom you already knew agreed with you. In addition to violating behavioral guides by doing that, your insistence that you "honestly" want to get to a good title instead of doing anything at all to correct the problems with your comment make it very hard to WP:AGF here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that is by no means a settled fact Russia was involved. But if this article is going to state as fact Russia interfered by hacking then we MUST have a section of the FACT of WHAT was hacked and leaked out- the democratic party's lying, cheating, unethical and in some cases illegal behaviors. And that is how the election was 'influenced'- the American people found out what was REALLY going on and voted accordingly.Aceruss (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Electoral College decided the election, not Putin, the popular vote (sic) was for Clinton and subverted.Keith-264 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Guys, please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Non-constructive comments which don't specifically address this article will be removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the situation is changing as more information is being released by the U. S. government. I suggest temporarily ending the discussion for now, transferring our efforts to the rest of the article, and revisiting the title issue in a month. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to the idea of not arguing too much about titles that will likely change with events, but I think the title as it is is such an egregious WP:NPOV violation, we should really fix it now. The fix is simple, in my opinion: either Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections would be fine. In a few months, when we know more, we can revisit the title and make whatever changes are needed then. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The change is simple, but getting a consensus isn't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think some people are worried that "alleged" is a weasel word, in which case I would support JFG's Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Allegations" (not weasel) and "alleged" (often used for weasel purposes) do not necessarily mean the same thing. There are no alleged allegations! It is a fact that the allegations exist, that they have been made - so it is not weasel to refer to them in an article title as allegations because that is what they are. Content worded like "X alleged Russian hackers did it" would be weasel, but that is not the issue. Allegations of ... is the better wording, imo. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , you read my mind., the fact that you and a handful of others think that this is such an egregious violation is the huge red flag that makes sure that those of us who disagree with you will argue against any change in title. The problem is the number of articles in which new, SPA and POVish editors have used the article title to argue for massive POV shifts to the article itself. With this article getting so much attention, putting the word "alleged" in the title, or making some other change that explicitly doubts the veracity of the narrative is an invitation to every alt-right editor with a hard-on for Putin/Trump slashfic to start tossing liberal handfuls of weasel words into the article under the auspices of "ensuring an NPOV". So take Bob's advice and just wait for the attention to die down. At that point, (as I've previously said but I'm quite sure you didn't read), I'd vote for an article title that would make you happy. But now? Hell no. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Be nice everyone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop defending this stupid article and do not say I agree with this article. How dare you put words in our mouths, MjolnirPants. The fact is, this article was made by asshurt Democrats and its being defended by asshurt Democrats. I'm not even a Republican and I can see this article is borderline retarded. CNN even said in October that the election can't be hacked, then later made an article asking why more people weren't outraged by the election being 'hacked'. This is all a pathetic excuse for Clinton's loss.  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 21:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think accusing others of being "asshurt" in the same comment in which you earnestly use the phrase "how dare you" is a level of irony you might have difficulty comprehending, but rest assured that I see and appreciate it. ;) I'm not sure what else to say, as you've added literally nothing productive to the discussion, nor even managed to wrap your head around my own contributions. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  04:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TALKNO, WP:NPA, and WP:NOTAFORUM. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support that title (Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States election).
 * The political implications of changing the article's title are irrelevant. It really doesn't matter if changing the title would somehow appease the Alt Right, Putin fans, Trump fans, or anyone else. If anyone comes by and starts disruptively editing the article, there are more than enough competent editors to deal with it here. But your objection seems entirely political, and such considerations are inappropriate here. What matters is WP:NPOV, and the article title clearly violates neutrality. If the title violates WP:NPOV, it should be changed now, rather than at some unspecified point in the future, after attention dies down. In fact, I'd say that now that attention is high, the maintenance of WP:NPOV is more important than ever. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you should read WP:IAR. Which is a policy page by the way, not an essay. My objections aren't based on politics, but on human nature and avoiding bigger problems with the article than simple vandalism. Oh, how come you aren't whining about 's comments? You whine an awful lot about mine... MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  04:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We can readily deal with possible problems that disruptive editors might cause. There are plenty of editors here. The WP:NPOV problem inherent in the article's title needs to be addressed, and predicting that fixing the the title will attract trolls isn't a good argument for ignoring WP:NPOV.
 * For the record, I don't condone how chooses to write here. I think that both your abusive comments and those of  are counterproductive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you're the only one who seems to think my comments are "abusive". Note that you seem to continue to think so after I explicitly told you they were not intended that way, but I guess you know my thoughts better than I do. But getting back to the point: Ignoring what I said and repeating yourself isn't helping. I've explicitly described a problem. You responded by asserting that we have means of dealing with a different problem. I mean, you yourself are arguing that this article's title suffers from POV problems, yet you're arguing here that POV is not a problem we need to worry about. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess they're not as sensitive as you, MjolnirPants. Did you expect me to react kindly to being silenced, along with a list full of others?  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 05:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody's "silencing" - you're just not really contributing to the discussion in a constructive manner. And who are these "list full of others" (sic)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right. My butt hurts so much right now. You got me spot on. I'm so sensitive that your 'biting' commentary has changed my mind completely. I now think there's no way Russia would ever try to hack a US election and am ready to blame it on (((you know who))). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Quite a few reliable sources still use "alleged" or "allegations" to refer to the Russian hacking: ABC News ("the alleged cyberassault that the U.S. says was intended to interfere with the 2016 election", "punishing Russia for alleged hacking interference in the U.S. presidential election", "U.S. officials have dubbed the alleged Russian campaign Grizzly Steppe"), Mic ("(Russia's) alleged cyberattacks during the 2016 election"), NBC ("alleged Russian interference") Wall Street Journal ("alleged hacking of U.S. institutions", "allegations that Russia hacked into Democratic email accounts in an attempt to scramble the presidential race"), Arutz Sheva ("allegations that the Russian government was behind the hacking"), etc. Those who say they want to follow reliable sources should do likewise. FallingGravity 20:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone here? FallingGravity 03:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this subject notable?
I'm questioning the notability of this article. Putting things into perspective, should there be a 'US interference...' article for every election in other countries? After all, the CIA regularly puts out the dirt it has on unfriendly foreign incumbents. What's the difference between what happened here and, say, American agents publishing information hacked from Russian government circles regarding their unsavoury activities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.144.91 (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If there are a vast amount of RS establishing said interference as notable yes (so create the articles) but if you think this article should be deleted then nominate it for AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Though I hate this article, yes it is notable. It is full blown in the media, regardless of if its true.  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 00:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no, of course not, not in the least. It is interesting though and arguably what your average person would expect to find in a quality encyclopedia.  Besides, I dont think youre going to have much luck getting rid of it at this point. We just need some political fluff to tide us over for the next few weeks. 55378008a (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

From WP:GNG of the Notability guideline:
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

Since this article presently has 173 references, the topic is suitable for a stand-alone article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that this name is too obscure and not self-explanatory. (Closing this one at the same time as the previous discussion, a little less than 7 days.) (non-admin closure) Brad  v  00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Grizzly Steppe – It's the official code name given by the US government, not a title made up by a bunch of Wikipedians. FallingGravity 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: Okay, yes, I know that there are two other move discussions going on right now. However, those don't seem to be going anywhere, and I believe this is fundamentally different from both the current title and all the requested title changes so far. The problem with those titles (whether they be "Russian interference", "Russian influence", "allegations", "Intelligence reports", etc.) is that they're made up by a bunch of Wikipedians. On the other hand, we could use the code name for the Russian cyber-campaign given by the US government: Grizzly Steppe. This name has been reported by multiple international media outlets to refer to Russia's meddling. FallingGravity 18:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "operation Grizzly Steppe" seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can imagine seeing that name catching on because some sources are describing it as an "operation" but I think it's too soon to determine. FallingGravity 22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Even if this was used as a codename, it's not a very widely known name and for most readers it's not self-explanatory. It's better to stick with the descriptive title than to obfuscate it with a title that seems meaningless to most readers. This article is, plain and simple, about election interference by Russia. --Tataral (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia policy says that are article titles supposed to be "self-explanatory"? The codename is "not a very widely known name" because it was only revealed yesterday (see WP:NAMECHANGES). Also, it's not supposed to "obfuscate" what the article is truly about. FallingGravity 18:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you are linking to Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. "Grizzly Steppe" as a title would obfuscate the subject, as in making it more difficult for readers to find, not telling readers what is is about in a clear way etc. etc. I have not said it is your intention, but it would be result of using such a title. As you point out, this codename only became known yesterday, so it's a mostly unknown term. --Tataral (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I was confused about what you it would obfuscate. While I understand that it's a relatively new name, in my opinion it only obfuscates the subject as much as other code name articles such as Fancy Bear or Cozy Bear (I'm guessing the bear theme inspired the code name "Grizzly Steppe"). In the end I was hoping this title would solve the title debates happening in other threads. FallingGravity 04:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No. not well known at all Govindaharihari (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No - I concur. Prior to reading this discussion, I was completely unfamiliar with the name "Grizzly Steppe" and I do try to be informed on the subject. William H. Magill 21:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whmagill (talk • contribs)


 * No - I created a redirect with the term Grizzly Steppe, which suffices to point readers to this article with both search terms, the current title and a redirect. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The existence of a redirect doesn't necessarily mean that the article's current title is the best one for the subject. FallingGravity 01:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I view articles kind of the way an inode based file system works supporting namespaces. A collection of data for a file is assigned an inode number, then various namespaces and individual names can all be setup to link to this object by inode number.  It really does not matter which title links to the article, if the titles are notable and all of them to point to the same mediawiki "inode" through this simple redirect mechanism.  This is an incredibly powerful feature and capability and editors should take advantage of it.  It kind of makes the discussion moot on renaming an article.  Just make a redirect and if folks don't think its notable, delete it.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not widely known and not self-explanatory.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- You could add a redirect if you think that anyone continues to refer to it by the code name at a future date. SPECIFICO  talk  21:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Forbes article on CrowdStrike
Useful info here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Useful for a good laugh or for what else? The link has no/any connection or evidence to United States election interference by Russia at all and is just laughable trash journalism, the kind that some users are insistent on edit warring into WP:BLP articles. Hey, "but we follow the sources" Govindaharihari (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The reliable source terms this as "The most convincing evidence yet" which is a compelling reason to include it, along with that categorization. As this is considered the most convincing evidence yet, it deserves its own subsection and complete description of why this evidence is so compelling. Perhaps you could come up with a rough draft because to be honest, I don't really understand how this evidence is so damning, but perhaps someone who does could come up with some good prose.  Marteau (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, You might be interested to learn that Crowdstrike's claim has been thoroughly debunked: "The GRU, according to Crowdstrike, developed a variant of X-Agent to infect an Android mobile app in order to geolocate and destroy Ukraine's D-30 howitzers. To do this, they chose an artillery app which had no way to send or receive data, and wrote malware for it that didn't ask for GPS position information? Bitch, please. Crowdstrike never contacted the app's developer to inform him about their findings. Had they performed that simple courtesy, they might have learned from Jaroslav Sherstuk how improbable, if not impossible, their theory was. Instead, they worked inside of their own research bubble, performed no verification of infected applications or tablets used by Ukraine's artillery corps, and extrapolated an effect of 80% losses based upon a self-proclaimed pro-Russian propagandist and an imaginary number of infected applications."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Disputed? Yes. "Thoroughly debunked"? No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Süddeutsche Zeitung Article
About the Süddeutsche Zeitung article I cited: I've included both the information that you added, and the statement about criticism of American agencies. There's a problem with how the section is now written, though: the details you added are from the part of the SZ article that discusses private cybersecurity reports, while the criticism is from the section of the article (the 2nd page) that discusses the Joint Analysis Report. As it is, the text you added makes it look like the technical details come from the JAR, while they actually come from private cybersecurity reports. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll just add that normally, I would remove the part about the technical details, because it's misleading (they come from private cybersecurity reports, not from the JAR, and are discussed elsewhere). But since this article is under 1RR, I'd appreciate it if you'd remove the relevant sentence, just so it's clear that there's consensus to do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus? SPECIFICO  talk  14:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed this talk section after rearranging parts of the article section. Is it OK now? If not, which sentence(s) is the problem? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence beginning with, "Some of the released indicators include ..." Those indicators actually come from private cybersecurity reports, rather than the US government's Joint Analysis Report. The Süddeutsche Zeitung article makes this clear. I've removed the sentence. I noticed that the rest of the article doesn't mention these particular details, so if they're important, they can be added to the section, "Cybersecurity Analysis." -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll study your comment, but first you may need to self revert what appears to be a violation of the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've self-reverted. I see no reason why the material shouldn't be included, though. The opinion of an Ars Technica writer is as relevant as many of the others cited on this page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That writer is not a technical expert, he is a journalist and not a WP:NOTABLE one. It's fine to say, as the article did before you inexplicably tried to restore reverted content prior to consensus, that he (as a journalist at a notable publication) cited experts' opinions. His own opinion, however, would be WP:UNDUE.  If I may say so, I think that editors on this page need to consider that not everyone is checking this thing 24/7 and that the edit and talk cycles need to slow down enough to ensure that a wider range of editors have the chance to comment.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The specific criticisms in the diff Bob linked to above (an edit by Thucydides) were not from the author, but from the source the author interviewed, Robert M. Lee who is a credible cybersecurity expert. So I think this information is not undue. I approve of the edit by Thucydides, with the caveat that it is altered to make clear that it is the Lee, not Goodin who made them. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: I agree with SPECIFICO that slowing down the pace of editing to this article would be a great benefit. Hell, I think slowing down the pace of RfCs and RfMs would help a lot, too. For the record, I usually don't ping people who are involved in these discussions because it seems pointless: absent a massive influx of comments, they're almost certain to see them. If anyone would prefer I ping them whenever I mention them, let me know here or on my talk page and I will do so from now on." MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with SPECIFICO and do not see why this single publication was described in such detail. This could be briefly noted if (a) it were an opinion of a notable expert and (b) it provided some specific details why exactly the assessment by agencies was wrong. However, this is not the case. Therefore, let's remove or shorten this. In addition, recent insertions, such as that one, must be included only by consensus if they are disputed, as they actually are. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, You need to self revert a violation of the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES, specifically:
 * Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I missed that remedy and thought you were earlier referring to a 1RR restriction. I will revert now. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears the the discussion to reach consensus on whether to add this source is still ongoing. As such, I reverted an edit by User:My very best wishes which removed the source under discussion in addition to another, separate source by Ars Technica that had not been under discussion. Joshbunk (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed insertion of this content in the lead section. While this content may arguably be worth noting in the body, it is completely undue weight for the lead. Please obtain consensus before reinserting. Neutralitytalk 22:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Bob was right and agree with your removal in lede. Speaking about the corresponding text in the body of page, some of it hardly causes anyone's objections, but the disputed part was added only recently, starting from this edit and therefore including it also requires consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There has been quite a lot of criticism of the US government's 29 December report, focusing on its lack of convincing proof or new information. This has been covered by reliable sources, including the Süddeutsche Zeitung (one of Germany's two leading daily newspapers), Ars Technica (a widely read news website that focuses on technology and the law), and Fortune. It's also been discussed by Matt Taibbi, who is a well known commentator. This criticism is therefore WP:DUE, and it should also be included in the lede, which, after all, does go at length into which individual private cybersecurity firms have given their opinions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a well sourced opinion by a number of experts. I am now convinced this should appear in body of the page. But I still do not think that nonspecific criticism (there was no sufficient detail/proof) should appear in lede given that vast majority of indirect evidence and publications leave practically no doubts that the operation was indeed directed by the Russian government (and successful!). My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the Süddeutsche Zeitung article that I linked, which directly says that there's no proof (in the voice of the newspaper, by the way)? The editorial line of most reliable sources appears, right now, to attribute claims of Russian hacking, rather than stating that they're true. And I've just cited an article from a reliable source that flatly says that the evidence isn't strong enough to prove the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The prominence given to this non-English article is unwarranted. "Cybersecurity experts speaking with the Süddeutsche Zeitung stated ...": The article doesn't say which one of the experts, if any, the two journalists, neither of whom has a technical/cyber background, interviewed themselves.  The anonymous German "Behördenmitarbeiter" (this could be anyone in civil service or employed by a federal or local authority/agency) "with technical expertise"?  The French entrepreneur and former hacker?  The Dutch security expert?  The rest of the article is a summation of information that is also available in English-language publications, Thomas Rid's Motherboard and Esquire articles, for example.  You've omitted the long section on page 1 with the "Indizien" (several meanings in English, from sign/indication to evidence) for a "Russian attack": The nickname of the last modifier, Feliks Edmundovits (as in Dzerzhinsky?), in Cyrillic script on one of the published documents; the hackers keeping Russian business hours; the same malware, i.e., "digital fingerprint", used by the hackers over the course of several years, in the Ukraine, spying on NATO, the German parliament, generally in areas of interest to Russia. The article also says that politicians want the kind of evidence you get in crime fiction, i.e., a perpetrator with blood on his hands, and that computer forensics can't deliver that.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I omitted page one of the SZ article because it doesn't deal with the Joint Analysis Report. Including "Indizien" (pieces of evidence, indicators) from the private cybersecurity reports would be inappropriate in the "December 29 Joint Analysis Report" section. They can go in the "Cybersecurity analysis" section.
 * The article doesn't say which one of the experts, if any, the two journalists, neither of whom has a technical/cyber background, interviewed themselves. Whether or not the journalists have a technical background is irrelevant. They're journalists at one of the best respected European newspapers, so we should assume they're competent to do their job, and that there is a competent editorial staff checking their work. But it's true that the article doesn't make clear if the SZ directly spoke with the two named experts, so we can change that phrasing. The anonymous civil servant ("Behördenmitarbeiter") has technical knowledge in the field, and they're cited by a reliable source, so their opinion is certainly notable.
 * You'll also note that I didn't include one part of the article which I suspect a lot of editors here won't like: the article points out that Crowdstrike, from whose analysis most of the evidence comes, was hired by the Democratic party to do the analysis (and is therefore potentially partisan) and stands to benefit financially from increased fear about cyber attacks. I actually think that this is a notable criticism, coming from a RS, and that it probably should be included in the "Cybersecurity analysis" section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You reverted the reinsertion of material that was earlier removed in error. You comment in your edit summary that this material is contested. The original removal came along with the edit summary, "article does not mention this." That summary, was, however, in error, as the source article does, in fact, state exactly what the sentence claims. Here, from the source article: "Angesichts der Behauptungen der US-Dienste verweisen Kritiker auf deren Lügen vor dem Irakkrieg und in der NSA-Affäre" (my translation: "In light of the claims of US [intelligence] agencies, critics point to their [the agencies'] lies before the Iraq War and in the NSA affair"). Given the edit summary, the original removal of the clause you just re-removed was clearly a mistake by an editor who didn't see the relevant paragraph in the source article (perhaps they didn't click through to page 2, but that's just my guess). That's why I restored the clause. Given that the removal was a mistake, I'd appreciate if you'd re-insert the relevant clause. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if that removal was based on an error, the content itself is obviously being challenged so you still shouldn't have reinstated it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Being challenged how? All I see is complaining that criticism of the intelligence services is somehow a Trump meme. I don't see any policy-based objection to its inclusion - just some political complaints about the statement. But the criticism is documented by reliable sources, so it's notable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What is "documented by reliable sources" is the fact that Trump brought it up. And that's already in there. This extra stuff is just turning the article into a COATRACK of something like The quality of CIA intelligence assessments over the years. And whatever your personal opinions of the quality of SPECIFICO's arguments, the fact remains that s/he's challenging the content, you're aware of this challenge, so per discretionary sanctions, you shouldn't be restoring it until there's consensus to include.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The SZ refers to critics. It doesn't mention Trump at all. As you can see from the Matt Taibbi article, there are more critics than just Trump. As for 's political objections to including the content, some policy-based objection is required. A user can't just state, "I object to this content for political reasons" and have it removed. Reliable sources have covered that criticism, specifically in relation to the 29 December Joint Analysis Report, so it deserves some mention, political objections of individual editors notwithstanding.
 * I think it would be helpful if you would make some sort of statement on these sorts of political objections to sourced content, because allowing them to constitute "objection" is just a recipe for anarchy in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The SZ journalists haven't done their homework; they are citing unspecified "critics" but they missed the point that it wasn't "US-Dienste" (US intelligence agencies) spreading lies about WMD, it was the Bush administration's (Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, in particular) selective use of the intelligence reports. Getting back to my original objection: Why is this media opinion given undue prominence in the section entitled "US intelligence analysis"?  It needs to be moved to the "Commentary and reactions" section, either as a new paragraph under "Experts and scholars" or as a new sub-section "International news media".  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You can register your disagreement with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, but it is a reliable source. For what it's worth, I happen to think you're simplifying too much in your view of the US intelligence agencies. Yes, the Bush administration cherry picked intelligence and promoted false intelligence, but the US intelligence agencies were complicit in that. They loyally issued National Intelligence Estimates that played up the supposed threat from Iraq and oversold the case that Iraq had WMD. For whatever internal discord there was inside the CIA in the run-up to the Iraq War, the CIA went along with the Bush administration's dissembling. I think the SZ journalists did indeed do their homework and got this right. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t have a problem with SZ. I just don’t think that en.wikipedia should use a reference most readers will have to Google-translate when there are RS available in English, these, for example.  The experts cited in SZ are also from private security firms with an interest in tooting their own horns and just as trustworthy or untrustworthy as the security firms hired by the DNC and other victims. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "...Süddeutsche Zeitung (one of Germany's two leading daily newspapers)..." - been meaning to ask: According to whom and which one is the other one? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The other leading newspaper is the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. This is just a widespread opinion in Germany, similar to how the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are viewed as leading papers in the United States. The German article on the Süddeutsche Zeitung mentions a 2005 study in which German journalists named the SZ as the number one paper they read, but as I said, the recognition of the paper goes beyond an individual study - it's just a widespread opinion.
 * I agree that a lot of cybersecurity firms are likely tooting their own horns. Jeffrey Carr (another cybersecurity consultant) suggested that Crowdstrike is trying to benefit from free publicity and selling "attribution-as-a-service" . But these firms are being cited in news media, so their claims - self-serving or not - are notable. We should just be careful about attribution when we cite them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Gotta agree about the Zeitung cite scraping the bottom of the barrel. aka Cherrypicking marginal "experts". Kinda like citing the Miami Herald for inside news about the Oktoberfest Attack of 1980. SPECIFICO  talk  19:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * SZ is a high-quality foreign publication. I don't see any problem with including it, especially since Wikipedia is supposed to represent a global perspective. Given your openly political comments throughout this talk page, I can see why you want to exclude it. But you shouldn't be here to push a particular political perspective, and I really do wish that you would behave more neutrally when editing here. It is very frustrating to try to edit alongside someone who so openly argues from a political, rather than Wikipedia-policy-based, perspective. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How terribly disappointing it is to see you engaging in a personal attack about me instead of concentrating on the substance of this discussion. Did you look at Graham's stripey pyramid as I requested? If not, please do. I have no political opinions and little interest in politics. That's what enables me to focus on what mainstream RS say and not to fish around the edges for borderline sources and content.  More importantly, you seem to misunderstand basic WP policy.  We don't use everything written in every reputable publication.  RS depends on the content and the context, and the content here must also conform to WP:WEIGHT and other standards. Please redact your personal attacks and please do respond to the substantive objections many editors have articulated with respect to your proposals.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thucydides didn't attack you, and that allegation is just a dodge from the fact that you're trying to exclude one of Germany's major newspapers as a source. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition, a bunch of random personal opinions about the SZ article don't constitute "substantive criticisms." -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How terribly unkind! Those are not "random" opinions, they are simply the ones I have to offer. To channel Don Rumsfeld, we appear here with the opinions we have. At any rate, to recapitulate: The paper is out of the mainstream for the 2d biggest US story of the year, so if the content is good you should easily be able to source it to mainstream US pubs. Then, the indivduals cited are not IMO at the top of the heap of informed experts, not even close. They're simply the ones who were free and prepared to talk on the record with very limited public information. Those are 2 of the opinions I've already stated. I also stated a few others, as have several of our colleagues.  Please consider them and factor them into your thinking on the subject.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've sourced the material to a mainstream German newspaper. That's good enough. Now, unless you have any policy-based objection to including well-sourced material, we should add back in the SZ comparison with the Iraq War and NSA scandals. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we can wrap this up and wind it down. Half a dozen editors have disagreed and given policy-based reasons why your view is rejected. So you have not established consensus for your position. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you mount an RfC so that uninvolved editors may join the discussion and give us the benefit of their fresh views.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I only see you and Marek objecting to the SZ's statement about the Iraq War and NSA scandal. And both of you say you object because Trump brought it up, and because there's supposedly nobody else making the Iraq War/NSA criticism (which is factually false, as editors have shown you - Matt Taibbi, Scott Ritter, Andrew Cockburn and others have made this criticism as well). In other words, I see only political objections from two editors, but no policy-based objections. I don't think Discretionary Sanctions are supposed to allow individual editors to wield political veto over content, so unless you can show some policy-based reason why the SZ's statement is not allowable, we should include it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's put this puppy to bed. Since you don't see that you lack consensus, I think the only way to resolve this is for you to mount an RfC with a brief, specific, and neutrally worded proposal as to article text and source. Then we can more or less reprise this bloated thread and enlist some poor soul to close the RfC. Sounds good? SPECIFICO  talk  00:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the sudden change of heart? Just a moment ago you were arguing that citing the SZ is "scraping the bottom of the barrel," but now you've expanded the SZ summary to several sentences (diff). I notice that you expanded it to downplay the main thrust of the SZ article - that proof of Russian involvement is lacking. Your change of heart is a little bit strange, but I take it now that you have no objections to including the part of the article that points to criticism of the intelligence agencies over the Iraq War and the NSA scandal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I trimmed it. I do think the whole thing should be removed, but that will happen in due course. SPECIFICO  talk  05:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You massively expanded the section that is based on the SZ article. You deleted content sourced from other articles. Given that you've been arguing that the SZ article shouldn't be cited at all, it's just a bit strange that you'd suddenly add several clauses based on it. It's even stranger that you say you want the material you just added to eventually be reverted. That's an interesting way to edit, but the logic of it is beyond my comprehension. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Meanwhile, please undo your 1rr violation. SPECIFICO  talk  05:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Whatever"? I'd really like to understand what rationale there is for adding material you say you want deleted. What edit do you think violates 1RR? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

the text you added on the SZ article maintains that, according to the paper, analysts might hype their results for attention. This might be true but I can't find the text. Can you paste that here when you have a moment, please? -Darouet (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. SPECIFICO the wording you've used: "An article in the SZ discussed... The reporters stated..." fails to note specific comments to the paper from cybersecurity experts, and would suggest there were none. Robert Lee, former Air Force officer and head of Dragos Security: "This is by no means a proof. The technical details are very weak." Based on commentary from Maartin van Dantzig, security specialist for the Dutch company Fox-IT, SZ concludes: "Without knowing why these Internet addresses are supposed to be harmful, this statement is worthless." A German expert who is unnamed: the indicators are of quite bad quality." I've included a statement noting that multiple experts told the paper that evidence provided was weak. -Darouet (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You have violated DS by reinserting the content I challenged prior to engaging here on talk. Please undo your violation and restore my last edit and we will work through any concerns here on talk. I'm not going to ratify edit warring behavior by engaging you until you undo what I presume was an error done in haste. I started a separate section at the bottom of this page for any concerns relating to the JAR bit.  SPECIFICO  talk  12:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey : as I also noted to you on my talk page, my edit doesn't seem to be a DS reversion: I haven't edited the SZ content previously, and kept some of the content you added (though it seems highly dubious to me), while modifying portions of it. I understand that, in general, the SZ topic is contested. But can you explain to me why you're allowed to edit it (e.g. why this edit is OK) but why I can't (e.g. why this edit  is a violation)? The issue was just as contested when you edited as when I did. If you can explain this I'll gladly self-revert. -Darouet (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I'll also ask you to remove your "citation needed tag." The article states "Kommerzielle IT-Firmen sind dafür an Selbstvermarktung interessiert." -- clear enough. SPECIFICO  talk  12:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I found the text. It strikes me that this comment should be placed in a section of the article that deals with analyses by cyber security firms. -Darouet (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also I asked Bishonen if they'd comment (they added the DS alert to the top of the page). -Darouet (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Addition of the dossier to the article
Yesterday someone added the entire dossier to the article, all 35 pages, in the form of a PDF file. I deleted it and another document with the edit summary "removing images of two documents, per Primary Sources; we should limit ourselves to Reliable Source reporting on these things". But that was before I realized it was the entire dossier; I though it was just the front page. The same user has now restored it and I now realize what it is. I think we absolutely can't have this in the article. It is nothing but unverified BLP violations from beginning to end. Will someone please remove it? I can't per 1RR. After we pull it I will explain to the user why we can't have it there. Our consistent policy has been that we report on the EXISTENCE of such a document, but we don't report what it says.

I am generally not in favor of using images of documents as illustrations, and I'm willing to talk about that later, but this is another matter entirely. I think we really need to get that out of there and make sure it doesn't some back. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's gone. And I have explained at the user's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the widely published documents that have been discussed in mainstream media for the last few days and which are not being as a reference to support any statement cannot be linked from this page. It seems entirely appropriate.  It has nothing to do with sourcing a biography.  I am tired of that being used an an excuse to remove things from Wikipedia.  I support the inclusion of the PDF file. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you should get a good, solid consensus for that first. Try the BLP Noticeboard, or start an RfC here. I'm against it, but I'm curious what the community has to say about it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a primary source. However, it was used and discussed in a large number of secondary sources. If they published, why can't we? It is freely available everywhere. Trying to hide it is meaningless. I think the only relevant concern if this is something convenient for a reader. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's already being partially discussed at the BLP Notice Board. To me seems like a BLP violation to post the dossier itself. Also just because someone can find it easly outside Wikipedia is not a valid defense for inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - adding the 35 page dossier, please link it here. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Non-free content – Irrespective of its contents and the veracity or appropriateness thereof, the "dossier" can not be on Wikipedia per WP:COPYVIO and WP:F. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:2017 Trump dossier by Christopher Steele — JFG talk 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

To-do list
Since the most active current threads on this page appear unlikely to reach consensus without RfC, I suggest we focus on some easily RS'ed details that need to be added to this article. We can keep a checklist of new items to be addressed and focus our efforts. Here is a start: SPECIFICO talk  16:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Consider including Trumps July request for Russia to "find the 30,000 emails that are missing"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.199.190 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Trump's false assertion that the his intelligence briefing regarding the Russian hacking has been delayed until Friday this week, when that was the originally scheduled date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO  (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have no way of knowing when the intelligence agencies told Trump he was getting a private briefing. In fact, this is recent history, so you really shouldn't try to rewrite it: I remember hearing news stories that Trump was being briefed on Wednesday (i.e., today) just a few days ago, and those aren't going down the memory hole. NBC News, in its latest report on the topic, says the following: "Trump has promised to reveal what he proclaims to know this week but there has been some confusion over when he will receive new intelligence briefings. He initially said he would be meeting with high-level intel briefers mid-week but that it was delayed. However, a senior U.S. intelligence official with direct knowledge of the situation told NBC News Tuesday night that the heads of the NSA, CIA, FBI and the director of national intelligence were always scheduled to meet with Trump on Friday. Another official had previously told NBC News that the briefing was scheduled for Wednesday, but that was apparently wrong." How can you refute Trump—who was there and is on the record—by way of conflicting anonymous leaks? Have you cultivated CIA sources yourself?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there’s AP, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, for example, all citing their reliable confidential sources. They’re all lying, I suppose? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The AP, NY Times and Washington Post are not lying, and nobody here is accusing them of doing so. They're reporting that administration officials told them the meeting was scheduled for Friday. There's a difference, however, between reporting, "Administration officials told us XYZ" and reporting, "XYZ is true." However, I've seen those two ideas conflated over and over again in this talk page. When newspapers report that US officials told them something, we can write, "US officials said X" or "US officials told the NY Times that X." But we can't jump to "X is true." This is a very basic distinction that every editor here should start observing from now on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, for the umpteenth time, opinion articles are not reliable sources for statements of fact. They're reliable sources for relaying opinions. The Washington Post aritcle posted just above is an opinion piece. It says so right above the headline. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The line between news reporting and opinion isn't all that clear-cut. Even when journalists do not appear to present their personal opinions, they can slant their supposedly straight news reporting just by presenting the opinions of some experts or by selecting interview partners who get to push their POV while the opinions of dissenting experts do not get a public forum. Change of subject and getting back to the prominently featured SZ article:  This part ought to be cited: "Was weiß die US-Regierung? Das bleibt unklar, zumindest bis der umfassende Geheimdienst-Bericht fertig ist, den Barack Obama angeordnet hat." (What does the US Government know? That remains unclear, at least until the completion of the comprehensive intelligence services' report Barack Obama has ordered [them to do]). With all the "this ain't no evidence" brouhaha, it took me a while to realize that the Dec 29 JAR isn't the detailed report ordered by Pres. Obama.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Trump's ongoing denigration of the US intelligence agencies' and their capabilities, on Twitter and in media quotes and TV bites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO  (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From the same NBC report: "Trump continued to cast doubt on intelligence findings as he cited WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange's claim that a '14-year-old kid could have hacked' the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. ... Trump's tweets came after Assange ... told Fox News Sean Hannity that our 'source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party' and that 'a 14-year-old kid could have hacked Podesta.'" I absolutely agree that this should be included—especially since what Trump said is 1,000% correct!'TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So could several people on Trump's campaign staff, for all I know, and no, I'm not insinuating that they did. But the DNC servers were hacked by more than one intruder and their contents surreptitiously observed and exfiltrated for a long time, and then published at opportune moments.  14-year old kid? Hardly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Assange and Trump were talking about the phishing scam Podesta fell for. Not exactly the sort of thing that screams "sophisticated state-sponsored espionage!"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except "those URLs “were created with a Bitly account linked to a domain under the control of Fancy Bear,” a group of Russian hackers" Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except those "sophisticated state-sponsored" hackers forgot to set their Bitly account to "private". Had they done so (it's a simple account setting) this alleged linkage would not have been possible.  Those are some elite hackers, alright ;)  Marteau (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the CBS article you cite references "Motherboard" which broke the story. Motherboard says:  "None of this new data constitutes a smoking gun that can clearly frame Russia as the culprit behind the almost unprecedented hacking campaign that has hit the DNC and several other targets somewhat connected to the US presidential election."  For some reason, CBS did not mention that.  Marteau (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of WP:RECENTISM RE:denials, JAR chatter, etc.
In only a week's time, it's clear that many of the content disagreements here about the SZ article, the JAR, and various pundit snippets are no longer significant details for an encyclopedic exposition of the topic here. I think we're now in a position to clean up a lot of the open items on this page by checking off and closing those discussions. It would be helpful, for example, if those who are urging the inclusion of the Murray bit, the SZ pundits, and the JAR disclosures would reconsider and affirm whether they feel these are no longer significant facts about Russian Interference, the topic of this article. There might be some sources there that could be used for a different article about intelligence operations, secrecy, disclosure, etc. Frankly, in my opinion, there will be much better references available if such and article is ever to be written. SPECIFICO talk  16:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As ever, your comment only begs the question: What's changed? There's still no evidence!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Before you make any deletions, especially on subjects you suspect might be contentious, please gain consensus for them here. I think the Craig Murray story, the JAR and the criticisms of the JAR reported on by the SZ journalists and many others are still on topic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is unencyclopedic and non-neutral to the point of absurdity that Craig Murray is currently not even mentioned & linked to in the article.John Z (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)