Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 4

C-SPAN programming interruption
RT news showed on C-SPAN today for about 10 minutes I think at this point C-SPAN is investigating if it was hacking or an internal routing problem. Just thought I'd mention it here so you good folk can see it. Maybe related to this article, which I'm sure many people are following with great interest. So... C-SPAN made a statement

"This afternoon the online feed for C-SPAN was briefly interrupted by RT programming. We are currently investigating and troubleshooting this occurrence. As RT is one of the networks we regularly monitor, we are operating under the assumption that it was an internal routing issue. If that changes we will certainly let you know. Level C (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What has this to do with an election that was months ago?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing, and the statement that it was "hacked by Kremlin" is just speculation. We don't know if there was an actual hack or just a network issue. Even if there was a hack, we don't know who would be responsible. There's nothing here to discuss. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, speculation. Section title should have been different. Level C (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've changed the heading to reflect that. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So then this is not about improving the article and so should be closed as irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me. If it's one day proven that C-SPAN was hacked by Kremlin then that would probably be a different wikipedia article anyway. Level C (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We could have an article on 2016 US election interference by Russia, and an article on Network programming interference by Russia. For now, we just don't have enough info. Level C (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * According to the NYT, the article title could just as easily be Network programming interference by some poor schmuck at C-SPAN, since it may have been a C-SPAN technical error. -Darouet (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The operating assumption by C-SPAN was that it was an internal error. Their spokesman either told NPR (I heard this on the radio last night so I don't have a link handy, but it's bound to show up sooner or later) or said in a press release that C-SPAN continuously monitors RT, and that it was most likely a technical error that swapped the broadcast feed for the RT feed. With that in mind, there's no relation to the subject of this article right now, and even if it were to come out that it was a hack (it won't, because if this was a hack by the Kremlin, it displays a shocking level of political incompetence) it would be a separate event. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Some conspiracy theorists link this to the alleged Russian attempt to take over the U.S. If the media decide to cover those views, particularly if they give them the same credence as the election hacking allegations, then they belong in the article.  The credibility of the allegations to editors is irrelevant, coverage should be based on coverage in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some conspiracy theorists link this to the alleged Russian attempt to take over the U.S. I'm usually rather up-to-date on CSes, but I haven't heard this one. Care to elaborate? (links will suffice, and you can post them to my talk since it's kind of tangential here at the moment). I agree that if there is coverage of people speculating that the two things are linked, that it deserves a mention here. But not full coverage. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know about a full takeover, but this and other nonsense are firmly planted into the American body-politic. Certainly reliable sources have sometimes depicted Trump as a Manchurian Candidate over whom Putin has "leverage". They sometimes hedge this claim deeper in the article, but that's not the part people tend read. In many WP:RS', there were predictions of hacked voting machines, firm claims about hacked grids, vast exaggerations of the reach of the Russian propaganda network and the number of its operators and "useful idiots", plenty of allegations that the leaked emails were doctored, and prolly a load of other crap that escapes my memory at the moment. It may not add up to one cohesive "conspiracy theory", at least as far the RS' are concerned, but it's pretty crazy. Most of this stuff has been discredited by the selfsame establishment sources (except some of the propaganda-network stuff), and will probably be abandoned completely once the Trump administration gets more comfortable. So I don't think this stuff can be inserted into the article. It is rather odd though that that the you-gov poll on the number of Democrats who believe Putin hacked the tally is not mentioned. Oh well. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing you said is anything I explicitly disagree with or wasn't aware of. However, it was useful because it helped me to contextualize TFD's remarks. I had assumed they were speaking about a conspiracy which alleges directly that Russia has been working to take over the US through shadowy means for some time. (Most conspiracy theories follow this sort of tact.) I see now that you both are referring to the the overall impression given by the media reporting on the subject of this article. To that end, I would suggest that while it's a conspiracy theory in the descriptive sense of the term, it's not a conspiracy theory in the same sense as other conspiracy theories. In this case, it is supported by sufficient evidence to maintain mainstream media interest, while skeptics remain relegated to the sidelines. Having read many of the sources used here as well as a number of other reliable sources about this, I suspect that's because the evidence is fairly strong. The skeptics have more to explain away than the proponents in this case, and indeed, the 'strongest' arguments the skeptics have put forth is that certain pieces of evidence supporting the theory are somewhat more circumstantial than they first appear. That being said, I would remind you (and any other skeptic reading this) that circumstantial evidence is not poor evidence.
 * For example, if the police investigated reports of a fight at your neighbor's home, found your neighbor dead with his head smashed in and followed a trail of bloody footprints to your house where they found your clothes and your hammer covered in your neighbor's blood with your fingerprints in your neighbor's blood on the latter and later found your DNA under your neighbor's fingernails, but were unable to illicit a confession from your nor find any witnesses, you would go to trial based entirely upon circumstantial evidence.
 * Therefore, I think referring to the subject of this article as a conspiracy theory is a POV-ish characterization that is best left to your own talk page (which, honestly, you should erase per WP:SOAPBOX) and not used in this article. There's too much division here as it is, and belittling the view of the majority of RSs on this subject is not going to help convince people to listen to you when you have legitimate concerns. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Take it easy, and stop putting words in mouth. I did not refer to the subject of this article as a conspiracy theory. It's likely, though far from proven (if you disagree, try making similar allegations about the US), that the GRU hacked the emails and that this action had some effect on the on the election. I was referring to shit like this and this. It's pretty similar to what happened during the Cold War, when sections of the media lapped up stuff like this, which is now recycled as "prophesy. It certainly qualifies as conpiratorial thinking, and does occasionally incorporate actual conpiracy theories. Of course you're not likely to get an overarching theory about how a superpower has been "taken over" by foreign agents or shadowy groups, outside Alex Jones or the John Birch Society (even JFK and 9/11 don't meet that bar). Everything on my user-page is reliably-sourced and factual, not a matter of political opinion. If you disagree, you're welcome to make to make corrections. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will grant that your user page is significantly less partisan and counterfactual than TTAAC's (former) user page. Your user page may, in fact be completely factual. But your user page excludes conflicting views and interpretations to the point that it presents a clear political view. I'm not going to report you for it because, frankly, I don't have a problem with that and it's borderline, anyways and wouldn't be worth reporting even if I did. I do believe that the rules governing what we put on our talk pages are too strict, and that editors like you and TTAAC should be free to put political statements on them if you wish. That being said, I don't think that editors who do so should remain immune to BLP policy, nor that it is in any way 'unfair' to point to such pages as evidence in discussions of behavior, or in which the political views of editors plays a role.
 * I may take you up on your offer in posting some corrections if I find them, however that's an exercise for when I have more time on my hands. And it's something I'd rather discuss with you on your talk page, first. And again: I'm not convinced your page isn't completely factual.
 * As for what you meant: I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but draw conclusions based on what you said. I see the distinction between what I said above, and what you said just now and I accept that you meant the latter. But my advise remains (aimed less at you than at TFD) and I would like to highlight a part of your most recent comment which I agree with and think is quite important: Of course you're not likely to get an overarching theory about how a superpower has been "taken over" by foreign agents or shadowy groups, outside Alex Jones or the John Birch Society... MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Quick Note: I think we've strayed well out of the topics appropriate to this page. If you want to continue this discussion, you're welcome to post on my talk page. But I think we should stop on this page. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

JAR Report section
I've trimmed some misrepresentation of cited sources, SYNTH and UNDUE detail not directly related to the subject. The section still has an undue emphasis on general discussion of the difficulty of tracking cyberintrusion and not enough emphasis on the mainstream reporting and reaction to the report. SPECIFICO talk  04:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What is "mainstream" reporting? You suggested above that the Süddeutsche Zeitung was not "mainstream," but if major newspapers aren't mainstream, what is? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mainstream doesn't relate to a single paper, as in Fox's "mainstream media" thing. Mainstream has to do with the central tendency among published representation in RS. SPECIFICO  talk  12:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Virtually all cyber-security experts on record agree that the JAR is a mess of little or no value when it comes to detecting Russian hacking. (The actual content contributors have documented this with a copious list of names—which you have literally laughed off: Robert Lee of Dragos Security, Maartin van Dantzig of Fox-IT, Mark Maunder of Wordfence, Rob Graham of Errata Security, Dmitri Alperovitch of CrowdStrike, ect.) If you disagree, where are the cyber-security experts praising the report? Your silence is deafening. This article should reflect the opinions of recognized experts, rather than your absurd (and entirely unsourced!) preconceived notions about what "mainstream" opinion must be. In effect, you are arguing that any criticism of the U.S. government is by definition not "mainstream," and arbitrarily deleting it while offering no sources that you believe are more representative of mainstream opinion or demonstrating even the slightest understanding of this complicated subject—and then crying "DS!" when anyone objects. This cannot stand. In your latest edit, for example, you purge The Washington Post (one of America's major newspapers, cited extensively when it supports the government) and CrowdStrike as insufficiently "mainstream" (or one of any number of constantly shifting rationales):
 * "According to Ellen Nakashima and Juliet Eilperin, writing in The Washington Post, 'at least 30 percent of the IP addresses listed were commonly used sites such as public proxy servers used to mask a user's location'; Micah Lee of The Intercept analyzed the 876 IPs flagged as suspicious, and found that 'at least 367 of them (roughly 42%) are either Tor exit nodes right now, or were Tor exit nodes in the last few years.' 'Dmitri Alperovitch, chief technology officer of CrowdStrike' called the report a 'jumbled mess.'"
 * CrowdStrike, like the Post, is cited extensively throughout this article when it supports the government. No-one previously considered that to be WP:UNDUE. Are you going to self-revert, or do I now have free reign to extirpate any hint of CrowdStrike at my whim? Moreover, in your edit summary and comment above you claim to have "trimmed some misrepresentation of cited sources [and] SYNTH"—yet (as usual) you haven't provided a single example of any of these alleged "misrepresentations." What material in the paragraph above, specifically, failed verification? If you remain unable or unwilling to answer this question, the content should be promptly reinstated, because you are gaming the DS by challenging RS under false pretenses.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly—despite taking the time to make numerous edits between my previous post and this one, and despite being pinged—SPECIFICO remains unable or unwilling to provide any of those supposed "misrepresentations"—or to provide any reliable sources or cyber-security experts contradicting the overwhelming consensus view that the JAR missed the mark. That should be the end of it, but since SPECIFICO's only actual purpose here is to report me if I reinstate the well-sourced content they "trimmed" (i.e., removed entirely) as "misrepresentations" (while refusing to elaborate), I need to "gain consensus" first., , Any thoughts on the merits of the paragraph above that SPECIFICO deleted? Micah Lee is an expert in the area of cyber-security even if you don't like The Intercept—and I don't understand how anyone can maintain with a straight face, as SPECIFICO does, that The Washington Post and CrowdStrike are only WP:DUE if and when they agree with the U.S. government.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The JAR was heavily criticized in more than just a few publications (Ars Technica, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Krebs on Security, The Washington Post and The Intercept, for example), so of course those criticisms should be included. I honestly don't understand what 's objection is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of the inapt content has been removed now, so this thread is just about done. SPECIFICO talk  00:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – See my comment below on the renewed proposal to delete this section. — JFG talk 23:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 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: Alright this is getting out of hand. Drop the stick and wait another month to try again. We're not going to have an RM discussion immediately after another one was closed, for the third time. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  03:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections –

1. The original move request was closed as "Not moved. There is no consensus for this move, and there are several editors who expressed concern that both names violate WP:NPOV." The important element here is the no consensus. The vote for was 13 and the vote against was 11. As discussed in the move review, the opposing votes did not advance any arguments why the proposed name is worse than the current name. This is why I want to revisit this discussion.

2. Given that the title that many who opposed this move also could not gain consensus for a move they favored, with a vote of  17 to 24, I wish to return to this discussion. I believe a move request should weigh the two options against itself. I do not believe that one should oppose this by saying simply that both are NPOVTITLE. One should make a logical argument why the proposed title would increase the problems with the title.

3. With that, I still believe the original rationale for the move are sound. Namely, the title conforms to the five criteria of WP:TITLE more than any other proposal that I've seen. It lacks ambiguity, reflects the coverage in reliable sources, and is is written in a such that a reader could easily find it via search and have an immediate understanding of what the article is about. Casprings (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey (RM 2017 #2)

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * What the flying fuck? is this going to be at RM every day for as long as it's on Wikipedia? Close and wait a couple months. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (RM 2017 #2)
Procedural note: This user voted in support of the previous proposal, with the rationale "Shorter and easier for the reader to find content." Aside from the fact that the new name is actually longer, this is not a good reason for support and is one of the votes that I discounted in the final close of that discussion. After that discussion closed, this user then brought the discussion to move review, which endorsed that decision yesterday. One of the participants in that discussion made the comment that this discussion should not happen again for at least a month. Another participant commented that it was time to drop the stick. Yet here we are again, having the same discussion for a third time. Seriously, wait a month. At this point it's just getting disruptive. Brad v  01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is true, but there was no consensus that further discussions were unwarranted. If consensus develops for that, I will certainly not bring forward a move proposal for whatever time the consensus demands. I did not bring the first one proposal and I have haven't really had this stick too long.Casprings (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone who closes this discussion will need to read and bear in mind the comments and closing statements in the previous discussion and in the move review. This means that you would need overwhelming support in this discussion in order to overturn the previous decisions. Do you have reason to believe that will happen? Brad  v  02:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide policy for that statement?Casprings (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear: If you believe that you are going to achieve overwhelming support for making this move, much more than there was at the previous discussion, and much more than there was at move review, then this is probably a worthwhile discussion to begin. On the other hand, if you do not have evidence to believe that the discussion will be substantially different, then you are just being disruptive. If neither of those apply, and you simply believe the last discussion was poorly closed, then you need to escalate that through the proper channels. Repeatedly having the same discussion hoping for a different outcome is simply not a useful strategy here. Brad  v  03:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think the strongest argument came from User:BU Rob13 in the move review when he said "I see 13 people supporting a move and about 11 people talking about a third option that warrants further discussion but doesn't impact the current discussion. A few actually object to the nature of the change, but very, very few. As such, I see consensus to move, personally." The first move was not moved because there was no census and I feel consensus could develop for this move if editors focus on comparing the two titles and not another theoretical choice. Again, this is a new discussion and I am not sure of what policy requires overwhelming supporting. Just normal consensus. If it does require overwhelming support, please provide the policy.Casprings (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the moratorium proposal necessary? This is getting out of hand. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 16 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.

Background section proposal
{{talkquote|

Historical intervention in foreign elections
The United States has a history of both interference in foreign elections and foreign interference in their own, for example the involvement of the South Vietnam government in the election of Richard Nixon, Iran in the election of Ronald Reagan, and potential campaign finance violations by China in the election of Bill Clinton. A 2016 study found that, among 938 global elections examined, the United States and Russia combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions. Russia in total, had intervened in 36 such elections, including the 1972 West German and 1977 Indian contests. The same study found that "on average, an electoral intervention in favor of one side contesting the election will increase its vote share by about 3 percent," an effect large enough to have potentially changed the results in seven out of 14 US presidential elections occurring after 1960.

Discussion

 * Support as co-author and proposer. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Informative, balanced, well-sourced and concise. — JFG talk 00:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral to focus on the 36 Russian interventions at the expense of the 81 U.S. interventions documented in the appendix. The U.S. is the world's leading superpower and the U.S. government just so happens to be more involved in the internal affairs of other nations than any other state, regardless of whether this hurts the feelings of American editors. One might even say it is false balance and WP:SYNTH to conflate the impact of the Iran hostage crisis on the 1980 election with the far more direct interventions documented by Levin—bags of cash to favored parties, extensive black propaganda, public threats of massive economic sanctions should the wrong candidate win, squalid attempts to bribe congressmen as in the Chilean election of 1970, ect. But if the focus must remain on Russia, we should probably mention the Soviet Union's 1984 intervention in support of Walter Mondale.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sauce? Specifically for Mondale? Timothy Joseph Wood  01:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in Levin's appendix; I'm not sure as to the extent of it, but I assume it is related to the KGB memo discovered in 1992 in which Ted Kennedy requests Soviet aid in defeating President Reagan's re-election.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Overblown: http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/apr/12/mackubin-thomas-owens/disputed-kgb-memo-sparks-mac-owens-claim-kennedy-t/ Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (Note: TTAAC has been subjected to a topic ban, and so cannot respond himself, anyone who wants may feel free to jump in for him) I just want to address the point raised above: It is neutral to focus on the fewer Russian interventions, precisely because this is a subject about Russian intervention. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:SOAP. This background proposal looks to me like a classic propaganda spin known as And you are lynching Negroes or Whataboutism. We interfered in your elections? Look at yourself! The subject might be of some interest, but it belongs to other pages. If this can be well-sourced, one could create a couple of additional pages, such as List of election interferences by state X. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My additional concern: text above misrepresents the numerous alleged interferences as a matter of fact. Some of them are indeed a matter of fact, but others are not. However, this is difficult to asses until we have List of election interferences by different countries. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)"Whataboutism" is as old as ideology itself, older than the USSR. It's actually as old as morality: see Jesus 2) We can ignore all this (it mostly leads to posturing here) and ask: do reliable sources consider it relevant to understanding the topic? answer's yes. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think one could actually include some cases of other countries interfering in US elections if reliably sourced. The interventions by US? No, this is different subject. Not on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To do that, you'd have to clip the sources like so. It's a great proposal, one that I'd wholeheartedly support. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "clip the sources"? Yes, sure. This is something we always do. For example, one can use a scientific review about proteins in general, but only use materials about one specific protein from this review if this is needed for sourcing a page about this protein. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COATRACK. There is no question that the USA has interfered, often violently and subversively, in the affairs of other nations, including assassinations of their leaders, but that is not the subject here. This is fine for another article (which we no doubt already have somewhere), but not here. If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But this isn't about "interference in others' affairs by the USA." This about interference in elections by Russia and the US. This history of interference is seen as relevant to the topic of the article by reliable sources. On what grounds to you deem it irrelevant? Personal opinion? Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Guccisamsclub, no, this article is not "about interference in elections by Russia and the US", but about "2016 United States election interference by Russia." It's about ONE election, and about Russian interference in that election. It's not about Russian interference in other elections, or American interference in elections in other countries. Those are all interesting subjects, but are not part of the scope of this topic. You can mention them in other articles, if that hasn't already been done, or write another article on the subject. I'd welcome such a venture because it's certainly a valid topic and there is plenty of source material. This LA Times article, supplied by Darouet below, is a good one which mentions that topic. If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you also think that newspapers like the LA Times are engaged in COATRACK when they mention other election interferences by the US and Russia globally ? It's certainly something I'd be interested in knowing when trying to get an overview of the topic, including to judge the likelihood that the allegations are true -Darouet (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Darouet, only editors here can engage in COATRACK. See my reply to Guccisamsclub immediately above your question. These are all interesting topics, but not all are within the scope of this article. If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per BullRangifer - off topic POV whataboutism and coatrackin'. Non encyclopedic. Also a good bit of SYNTH going on (several of the source mentioned above pre-date the topic of this article and others only mention it in passing).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed addition is beyond the scope of this article which is the 2016 US election. Can't resist this comment on the proposed text:  The allegation that the East German Stasi (not the Soviet Union, as far as I know) bought CDU vote(s) in the failed 1972 vote of no-confidence (not an election) against then-chancellor Brandt, which would have resulted in the opposing party's candidate becoming chancellor, is a rumor, "confirmed" only by the memoir of former East German head spy Markus Wolff.  Extremely reliable source, NOT.  Again: heck no.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This content is far afield from the subject of the article and has minimal relevance unless we're trying to write a book on a broader subject. It also tends to skew WP:NPOV with its subtle appeal to hypocrisy.- MrX 12:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The fact that the relevant history paints the US in a bad light doesn't change the fact that it's relevant history. And now for the periodic reminder: I'm a hardcore liberal. I'm a "Reagan was a crap president" and an "I might have given Clinton a hummer too, if I swung that way" liberal and a "Would have voted for Obama just because he's black and a Dem, even if I didn't like his politics" liberal. I just can't escape the notion that the arguments against this all boil down to editors having a problem with the implications. I would, however suggest that the first sentence of the proposal include Russia in it's declaration. Both states have that history, even if the US's is more extensive. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants, I'm a liberal too, but it's irrelevant who gets painted in a bad light. We don't censor articles or write sales brochures here. I agree that "it's relevant history," but it's not on topic for this article. As I've just written above, we need to stay on topic. This type of stuff is very interesting and legitimate for mention in some other articles, and even for new articles. I welcome such ventures. Inclusion here would tend to dilute the subject and tend to be victim blaming, something both Putin and Trump would love, and a tactic Trump often uses... If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a liberal too, but it's irrelevant who gets painted in a bad light. That's exactly my point.
 * I agree that "it's relevant history," but it's not on topic for this article. That's a contradiction. How can something be both relevant and off-topic at the same time? Look, I'm all for creating an article like Foreign intervention in Democratic Elections and simply summarizing the lead of that article in a sentence or two here with a main article link. I don't want to detract from the subject or muddy the waters: I want to inform the reader. And doing so means we have to give the reader a good sense of context for this event. That means informing the reader about the history of this type of interference in some way. A way that minimizes the POV shift to this article, and doesn't come across as a tu quoque argument would be ideal, but I've not seen a single proposal to do that. All I'm seeing are people saying "No" and not suggesting any alternative. Propose an alternative that does this, and I'll drop my support for this paragraph (it's not and should not be its own section, just an introduction to the background section) and jump all over that. Really, this proposal is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow, but I'm not going to balk if it means improving the article. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this might be done, but not in the way suggested above. It starts from "The United States has a history ..." on a subject of events where US appear to be a victim of foreign intervention. This is classic propaganda approach. Consider victim blaming as another example. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants, I meant "relevant history" in a general sense, not thinking of this article. During an edit conflict, I added the following sentence which might explain my thinking: "If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic." -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but consider: victim blaming is a phenomenon that requires intent; after all, Donald Trump has been the 'victim' of a lot of attempts at character assassination (I'm referring only to false accusations here, for example ). Does that render him immune from criticism of his character? No, not for a second. His character was and remains highly criticizable. I couldn't honestly describe him in vernacular terms without committing a BLP vio. Criticizing his character only becomes victim blaming when I do so for the purpose of excusing the attempts at character assassination.
 * I saw your addition after the fact, and I agree that such evidence would make this sort of thing more relevant. But that's not to say it's not relevant enough already. Again, I'm not suggesting (and this proposal doesn't consist of) a big write-up on the US's past similar crimes. Just a few sentences saying "Hey, this sort of thing happens a lot." MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment:, thank you for taking the time to put this together so nicely (and even finding a recent scholarly article). In general I'd support the text you've proposed, but I would suggest deleting the first sentence. I think it might theoretically be included at some point, but debate here at this time makes it hard. If you kept everything from the second sentence onwards, I'd suggest incorporating this article from the LA Times to also note the number of elections the US has intervened in (81). I would support a formulation of that kind. -Darouet (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Darouet, yeah. I'm done. I'm just going to make a new article. There's far too many irrelevant policies, vacuous arguments, and far too little constructive discussion, or genuine attempt at collaboration here. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is not just about attempts to influence elections, this is about illegal interference. It is not just about election interference, but espionage and hacking.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Not that it matters at this point. I'd also support per  only mentioning Soviet/Russian past interference, as a second choice. We can keep the sources but remove all mention of US interference, since some people think the US' conduct is particularly irrelevant to this article. (several others think neither is relevant) Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's a separate article. If creates a reasonable article on the subject, it's fine for the "see also" section. Inclusion here is, as I'd already anticipated, WP:COATRACK which screams of halo as what is, essentially, the preface to the subject of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Foreign electoral intervention. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This addition is peripheral to the article's topic and WP:UNDUE. If anything, the US calling Russian elections unfree/unfair was more of a motive for Russian active measures than any past US election interference. Agree that something along the lines of Election interference by the United States could be an article though. gobonobo  + c 00:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - it helps bring background for the relevant commenters (eg. Glenn Grenwald), who are skeptical of the US Intelligence Community, and the Democratic Party's narrative. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 03:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is off-topic for this article. It's COATRACK and SYNTHY insinuation that tilts the content away from the subject of the article. SPECIFICO  talk  02:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SOAP and WP:COATRACK. It really is a separate article and classic propaganda spin which seeks to create false equivalence between Russia's interference with the 2016 election -- which was largely enabled by Trump himself and implicates him in some sense, which is embarrassing for him -- and their past efforts hoping to make this look like it's not all that big a deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.153.181 (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Christopher Steele
WP:BLP1E, merge to 2016 United States election interference by Russia 2016 United States election interference by Russia Widefox ; talk 15:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC) (updated)
 * Withdrawn - it's not BLP1E that's the overriding issue with the Christopher Steele article, but WP:BLP hindering inclusion in BLP Trump of this article (as it's not from Russia). The correct place for the dossier topic is in a dossier article which mentions the author per my A) or B) logic below. Widefox ; talk 13:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be all hie is really noted for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. He was involved in investigations re: Alexander Litvinenko and FIFA. No doubt more. Lex Therumsdottir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He may have been involved in other investigations - of course he was - but this is the one that made him a public figure. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep so notable for these other events that his page is...less then 24 hours old.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I haven't figured out yet how to propose an article for deletion or I would have proposed that blatant BLP violation of an article by now, including the obvious OR (where did the DOB come from?).  For now:  Oppose merger. Found no sources for other investigations.  WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:PRIVACY, WP:DOB, WP:NPF, WP:1E.  Space4Time3Continuum2xSpace4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Although this is the talk page referred to on the merge proposal, there is also a discussion on this idea at Talk:Christopher Steele. I will transfer my comments from there to here and will suggest that others do the same. In any case, I would suggest that whoever closes the merge request look both places. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge I would really rather delete this article and not have a redirect, because of the nature of his work and possible danger to him in being a public figure. Unfortunately that train has left the station; he is publicly identified now, and we can't undo the publicity he has gotten. But the fact is that he was not in any way notable until this story hit the news. IMO this is a matter of WP:ONEEEVENT and he should NOT have a separate article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose he appears to be notable outside of this leaked document. - Scarpy (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the contents of the Steele dossier are extremely inflammatory and currently unverifiable, I don't believe there's any way to tie them to the subject of this article in a BLP-compatible way. The allegations don't just impugn Russia but also amount to unsubstantiated allegations of treason by Trump and his staff. Tread carefully. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not understand how BLP1E can apply here. Policy tells: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
 * 1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
 * 2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
 * 3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ..."
 * Actually, none of these conditions was met. #1. No, he was involved in several other high profiles events, including FIFA corruption scandal and Litvinenko poisoning. #2 This is already a very high profile individual. #3. The event was significant, and the role was significant. This is plain notable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't think it's that clear cut:
 * There's RS only in the context of this event, none before AFAIK. The issue of working on other topics is clearly under the radar ...leading to...
 * clear-case WP:LOWPROFILE "covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event" - clearly so
 * "not well documented"
 * If having to chose between an article on A) dossier or B) BLP It's always A) Widefox ; talk 23:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - No, he played an important role in many other high profile events, and this is well documented (see here). Yes, that was published only recently due to secrecy reasons, but that does not decreases his notability with regard to other events;
 * - Yes, you may be right; it is hard to tell what would happen otherwise,
 * - No, this is very well documented in WP sense: very large number of sources tells he did it; there is no controversy about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your original point about No. 2 is still valid. There is a crucial difference in that it is in the nature of his job in intelligence to keep a low profile, that is not the same thing as low profile. The fact that it has since been revealed that he was involved in a few other major events meant that none of the criteria for BLP1E can apply to him (he is therefore not "allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events" according to WP:LOWPROFILE). Hzh (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the story broadens, it's clear the topic is reflecting more on the author (for now) and there's huge interest in the author, so in that way it's a news article. I agree that an outed intelligence officer is a strange one. Pulling out to big picture (with the caveat that I haven't followed the previous work), he's notable for this dossier. It's the dossier. I still chose A) not B). Widefox ; talk 13:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OpposeThe event and the man are each independently notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this article is long enough already, and there's reasonable evidence that Steele and/or his dossier are sufficiently notable for an independent article. Robofish (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the article provides useful background on him (ie with extensive intelligence contacts in Russia), that helps contextualise his role in the dossier Xcia0069 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge As I said he was not notable enough for his own article before this. It maybe that his dossier is not part of this (in which case I would oppose merger) but if it is part of this then this is all he is really notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it has been revealed that he may have played a major role in the investigations of other major events (Litvinenko poisoning -, Fifa scandal - ),  therefore BLP1E cannot apply. Hzh (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Steele appears to be notable beyond the dossier, as the cofounder of Orbis Business Intelligence and for his role in the FIFA corruption investigation. What we really need is an article on the dossier though, as we can't do it justice here. gobonobo  + c 01:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Duplication between Steele & Dossier articles there is now a heavy overlap between Christopher Steele & Donald Trump Russia dossier that I suggest we can delete one of the two articles or merge both. What do you think? J mareeswaran (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Steele is notable beyond the dossier, there are lots of wp:rs reporting him prior to this issue. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Better target
There is now an article on the dossier itself: Donald Trump Russia dossier. That article is currently at AfD, but if it is kept, I am going to make a new merger proposal - that "Christopher Steele" be merged to it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Republicans also hacked by Russia
According to FBI's Comey.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN is not a reliable source. They're intentionally spreading fake news on the Russia hacking. See accusations that Donald Trump stayed in a hotel room that the Obama's had stayed in so that he could hire prostitutes to perform a golden shower show on the same bed the Obama's had slept in. How more extreme do you have to get before CNN is not considered a reliable source?

Regardless of the reliability. The body of the article directly refutes the false claim made in the headline: "Comey said there was no sign "that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked." So this is just more CNN fake news.  2601:47:4180:7953:95ED:A1D:6EE4:3FA3 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * CNN is not a reliable source. The community here strongly disagrees with you. I could point out what's wrong with your specific claims, but I suspect there's no point. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The body of the article directly refutes the false claim made in the headline. You call that reliable? 2601:47:4180:7953:95ED:A1D:6EE4:3FA3 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The body of the article directly refutes the false claim made in the headline.No, it doesn't. Your inability to understand the well-defined temporal distinction made explicit in the article, combined with the necessary preconceived notions about CNN to make such a broad claim based on such an obvious error do not, in any way impact the reliability of CNN as a source. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Comey said there was no sign "that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked."" 2601:47:4180:7953:95ED:A1D:6EE4:3FA3 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just in case you genuinely missed the key statement from one of the opening paragraphs: "FBI director James Comey told a Senate panel that there was "penetration on the Republican side of the aisle and old Republican National Committee domains" no longer in use. Republicans have previously denied their organizations were hacked." Lizzius (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, the RNC wasn't hacked, but they're shifting the goalpost.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that two different things are being conflated: These are two very different matters, but they potentially affected the election process and also Trump's vulnerability to blackmail. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The hacks of the DNC, for which we have abundant RS documenting and discussing it at length.
 * 2) The years long cultivation (not hacking) of Trump by the Russian government, with their covert video taping of his activities. (We don't report on those reportedly salacious activities in this article, at least not until we have better confirmation.) Also of the Russian's more recent coordination with Trump's election campaign, with both Trump's team and Russians willingly involved.

As this information was not released during the campaign what relevance does it have to the campaign, especially as it might well have been funded by American political parties and thus is not (beyond who supplied the information) a Russian endevour? (and yes I have been following this, I have just no commented until now).Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's established that the same perpetrators who hacked and published DNC material also hacked the RNC but did not publish any potentially damaging material they obtained, that's also a form of interference by omission. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That has not been established. Directory Comey testified under oath that the current RNC was not hacked per the source under discussion.  73.10.160.126 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

California Secessionist movement
Seems something that also cold be added to the article as multiple WP:RS are reporting Russian links. See here. I would think in an effects section that details further Russian efforts?Casprings (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misreading that source, it seems to be just about Russia's preferences for California. There is no hard evidence in that article that Russia is interfering in California, which is what this article is about. Brad  v  04:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take that talk too seriously. It's petulant, joking, talk, but if Trump were to visit California, he'd be met with protests. The only areas where he might be met in a friendly manner are areas where his large stature would still be hidden in the tall pot grows behind the meth labs. Hillbillys in Northern California like him, you know, the areas where the gene pool is very limited, and the "toothbrush" was invented (if the people living there had more than one tooth it would be called the "teethbrush"). Even in those red counties, he didn't win by a large margin. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Still need to get rid of "alleged" and "briefing" from heading
Since there has been no response to my comments above, I'm starting a new section to reboot the discussion.


 * 1) The "alleged" needs to be removed. The dossier is not "alleged". It exists. It is the "veracity of" the contents which are "alleged".
 * 2) This is about much more than a briefing, which occurred long after the original October article by Mother Jones. Therefore "briefing should be removed. It's a remnant from the stub beginnings of this section. The section includes much more now.

If we are going to keep "alleged", then how about this:


 * Dossier about alleged Russian connections

That's a much better description. It also needs its own section. It's not logically part of the section it's in. The previous content in that section is about hacking. This has nothing to do with that. We need to get this right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree and done.Casprings (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. A dossier contains, by definition, a collection of facts about a person.  If this 'dossier' is a work of fiction, and if the more outrageous "facts" turn out to be made up,  it is not actually a dossier, is it?  Marteau (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, a dossier contains documents about a person. And "dossier" is what reliable sources are calling it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Marteau, RS and experts do not consider it a "work of fiction". "Unverified" does not imply "less than true", nor does it diminish the possibility that the allegations are 1,000% true. The degree of trust we place in the content is totally dependent on at least three things: (1) The impeccable reputation of the author; (2) The character and history of Trump, which makes this type of behavior totally in character; (3) Outside verification from numerous independent sources which say this is true, and that there are other witnesses and videos, including from other cities than Moscow. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion
What do people think about the recently added Public opinion section? I think there is a place for such a section, but I'm not sure that the current material is suitable or relevant to this article. Only one cited poll relates to the subject of this article; the rest are just about the opinion that "Russia is a threat to us" which IMO is not directly related to this subject. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The three polls mentioned were conducted to gauge American sentiment following the allegations of Russian interference, which makes them relevant here. - Scarpy (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They would be more relevant with a little context - because there is nothing tying them to the allegations. Are these results any different from what people said a month ago, or a year ago? --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would mention the poll that relates to the subject of this article in the Public Opinion section. I would recommend removing the other two polls about Russia being a threat to the U.S., as that is nothing new nor more relevant now than in the past.--FeralOink (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. It might be relevant if we had any evidence that public opinion toward Russia has CHANGED as a result of this subject, but the percentages given tell us nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The two off-topic polls have been removed.- MrX 12:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Obama administration functionaries accused Russia
Article lede is misleading. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

New McClatchy report confirms some key details.. need integration in article.
Article here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html


 * Here's the key point from McClatchy report:


 * Investigation of Trump/Russia connections pre-Steele Dossier
 * investigators interviewed Steele in Italy
 * Report confirms BBC report that a look at Russian financial connection to Trump began in April: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

I think all 4 points should be in this article and the Steele Dosier article.Casprings (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Steele is in hiding from the press and refusing to answer any questions or report on his sources, his dossier is worthless unless he reveals his sources and provide some actual evidence. The fact that he met some unnamed CIA person in Italy and gave him unverified details of what he was selling is laughable and unworthy of any report anywhere. All of the stuff you want to add is trash, laughable. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

WSJ article on Flynn
More details on ongoing counterintelligence investigations on Fynn. http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-eyes-michael-flynns-links-to-russia-1485134942

Casprings (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Obama administration functionaries accused Russia
Article lede is misleading. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump dossier - BLP
I blanked the entire section on the Trump-Russia dossier because I don't think there's any way to present content about the dossier in this article in a BLP-compatible way. It seems impossible to connect the dossier to Russian interference without conveying at least some of its contents, which amount to unsubstantiated allegations of treason by Trump and his staffers. Sorry if this starts a flame war, I'm only trying to follow BLP. In fact I have little interest in this article and I'm not even watching it. Please ping me if you want my attention here. And now I will duck and cover. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Biden just confirmed to the AP that he and Obama had been briefed on the Dossier. Per sanctions, this must now be discussed before it is mentioned in any capacity. ViperSnake151   Talk  21:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this is one of cases when someone removes any content he does not like (no matter how important and well sourced) and then requires consensus to restore. Doing so I think is actually against WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and it is misuse of sanctions. However, if admins think this is all right, then who cares? My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes this is exactly what is happenning. I do not support its removal of the basis of BLP. We certainly should not remove content because "it amounts to unsubstantiated allegations of treason". - Shiftchange (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As long as the article makes it clear that these allegations have never been substantiated, I don't see how it's a BLP violation. See Pizzagate conspiracy theory for an example of unproven (in that case, obviously untrue, but still) allegations about a living person that no-one is suggesting violates BLP. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've restored the text. A wholesale deletion of that section is clearly against consensus. Feel free to discuss any particular changes you want to make, but in its current form the whole section looks well-sourced to me. Brad  v  22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Brad. I was just in the process of composing an argument to say that restoring it would be OK under the DS, since half a dozen people on this page have already discussed the section - and there seemed to be general agreement to cover the existence or alleged existence of the dossier, but not to divulge any of its contents. In fact when someone posted some of the salacious stuff from Buzzfeed it was deleted and revdel'ed, and that should continue to be our approach. That will keep us clear of any BLP problems. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Although I am an admin, I participate here as a regular editor, and so my "argument" that restoring this would pass DS was just an editor's opinion, not any kind of official ruling. I will say, though, that if anyone sees any attempt to add BLP violations to this article or this talk page, holler for me or any other admin who happens to be online, and let's get rid of it as quickly as possible. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm back for a moment in response to a good-humored comment on my user talk from MjolnirPants. After re-reading WP:PUBLICFIGURE I'm changing my tune--this does not appear to be a BLP vio, my mistake. That said, I think we should use caution in how we approach this subject and, as PUBLICFIGURE suggests, avoid the more inflammatory / less necessary allegations. Also, folks, please try to assume good faith and play nice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * These salacious materials have not been verified to be accurate, and BLP would seem to indicate it should be excluded until the sources of the materials can be verified. Right now, these materials are unsubstantiated gossip.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the section asking for more thorough sourcing of these materials. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The section already has 28 references. There is already a citation to a Reliable Source on virtually every sentence. Please specify what material you think needs "more thorough sourcing". If you cannot point to the statements in the section that you believe are inadequately sourced, I am going to remove the tag. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So are we also going to remove the Pizzagate scandal from pages it is on ? after all it is just all salacious unsubstantiated rumor. Sorry, but this is highly notable (I.E. multiple RS have noticed it). It does not fail LP, as long as we make it clear this is an allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a dubious document which is being attributed to a former intelligence spy, but there is no concrete evidence the document is even genuine. It's purported author has not come forward to verify he wrote it -- its just gossip in the press.  BLP would direct that this garbage, fake news story be removed from this article until it can be verified as accurate. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Except the sources are not fake news sites, and many have said (explicitly) they have seen this dossier.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, like I previously stated, there is no concrete evidence that this document is genuine. It's attributed to anonymous sources, whether covered by the press or not, so since when do we allow anonymous sources of materials to pass BLP muster?  Trump has stated its fake news -- I would think he would know since he is the subject of the document.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's attributed to Christopher Steele, which multiple RS have conformed. And as to what Donny says, he has never told a fib?Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble finding a press quote from Christopher Steele taking credit for this document. Do you have a reference with an interview by the press where Steele assumes responsibility for writing this document?  I have read this document cover to cover and it reads like it was written by a high school teenager, not an intelligence operative.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The tag does not serve any useful purpose. It might be needed to bring attention to the section, but it already got a lot of attention. In addition, contrary to the tag, the section is well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. MelanieN clarified the BLP stance on this document. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Our approach here has been that we do not report anything about the alleged contents of the report - since it is unverified and a good deal of it would probably constitute a BLP violation. What we ARE reporting is the existence of a report saying that the Russians have information about Trump, and the various public reactions to this report. The fact that such a report exists is not gossip - it was reported by U.S. intelligence agencies. It has been front page news for days and there is no way to suppress its very existence at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is very reasonable approach. I concur with your assessment.  I have read through these sources and I am having a hard time accepting this document is a formal report from MI16 -- it may be a fake or it may be genuine, time will tell.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is NOT a formal report from MI16. It is a report from a private investigative firm, headed by a former MI16 operative. --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. BTW, when exactly this report was headed to the FBI? I thought it was earlier than on October 31, 2016. Was the date of the initial distribution published somewhere? This date is probably important to note. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about this too: "when exactly this report was headed to the FBI?" David Corn wrote about the report ("dossier") in an article published on 31 October 2016 (A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump) but did not publish its contents. In that article, someone whom Corn later identified as Steele said that he gave the report to a contact of his at the FBI in early July 2016. Steele was first retained by the political consultants in Washington D.C. to write the report in early June 2016. All we know with certainty is that Senator John McCain gave the report directly to James Comey, the FBI director, in "late 2016" according to McCain's official statement on 11 January 2017. I am not sure when the FBI first received the report. It could have been in July 2016 (from Steele), or in September 2016 as that is when Corn said that Democrat Harry Reid was complaining that the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton but not Donald Trump.--FeralOink (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

At this point, this story is big enough (and it's still growing) so that


 * 1) We probably do need a separate article on it.
 * 2) In one way or another we do have to discuss in the article what's actually in the dossier. Of course we shouldn't rely on the dossier directly but should use secondary reliable sources (not BuzzFeed) which discuss the contents.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, something like this ("US intel sources warn Israel against sharing secrets with Trump administration") needs to be somewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

More relevant and notable info missing from the article: "active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file (said) that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature"..

Or "Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign."

Then there's the whole thing about the rejected FISA application. ("three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.")

Likewise, strangely, the fact that the source has been deemed "credible", which was emphasized by most sources reporting on the dossier (for example, BBC) is absent from the article.

Basically, every reliable newspaper out there is reporting this up, down, sideways and diagonally, but we're still talking about whether to mention it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I understand from the other editors the existence of this document can be verified but the actual content of this document and its salacious content cannot with certainty be verified as factual and would probably violate BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The source, Steele, may be credible, but there are at least two problems with his report/dossier. First, it contains errors, although the significance of those errors is unclear. More importantly, the salacious content is not verified, nor verifiable (according to most news media, including BuzzFeed). So, the document exists, but we don't know if its contents constitute factual evidence of Russian influence on Trump and the 2016 election. I suppose we need to wait until the FBI or the Senate's investigation releases a statement about the veracity...?--FeralOink (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I know! Let's do what CNN was planning! First we will report the true statement that "US intelligence agencies presented evidence Trump has been compromised". This is true of course but the key is this: Second we will hide behind BLP to prevent releasing the contents of the "compromising information" that any rationale person would consider ridiculous and implausable. That way we can slander Trump by saying "[...] Trump has been compromised" without allowing anyone to challenge or refute the validity of the evidence (because that would be a BLP violation). LOL. 73.10.160.126 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC) — 73.10.160.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't think sarcasm is the best way to make your point here. It seems you might have a valid concern about this article, or a helpful proposal on what to change, but it's hard to determine what that is because of your conversational style. If you have something to contribute, please do that in a straightforward manner. Brad  v  17:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is simple. You can't say "documents indicate Trump was compromised by Russia" unless you're also going to say "the documents are implausible and ridiculous".  A rationale human being may believe that Russia has compromising information on Trump... but no rationale human being believes Trump rented a hotel room and hired hookers to urinate on the bed specifically because Barack Obama had stayed there.  If you're going to include the dossier it should be explicitly called out as ridiculous.  There are plenty of credible sources who have called it exactly that.  It's amazing to me that some guys from 4chan make up the most egregious fake news they can, pass it off to the media and opposition research groups, and just because CNN puts it in print the people on wikipedia are claiming it is from "a reliable source."  What is reliable about printing unvetted allegations from opposition research groups?
 * Let's be real: There is no reliable source for this information.  Just because CNN is a "reliable source" generally does not mean it is a reliable source in this case.  107.0.155.16 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IP, I agree with your overall point, but the stuff you're saying about CNN is both ridiculous and demonstrably wrong. They never credulously reported on the contents as if they were verified truth. No-one has, outside of a few far-left-wing sources that we wouldn't trust, anyways. Also, the dossier was produced by Christopher Steele, not "some guys from 4chan." 4chan is pretty much entirely pro-Trump, anyways. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that CNN did not report the contents even though they had them. CNN knew that the contents were not credible yet decided to report half the story anyway:  They reported that there was evidence Russia had compromising information on Trump and then they withheld the details.  That's skeezy.  At least when Buzzfeed reported it they provided the actual dossier so a critical reader could determine for themselves that the claims were incredible.  If not for Buzzfeed having released the entire dossier, CNN would still be reporting as fact that "17 intelligence agencies" had presented evidence that "Russia has compromising information on Trump".  That's real skeezy. 2601:47:4180:7953:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not what happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically what they were reporting was true: There was evidence that Russian had compromising information on Trump.  But CNN choose to withhold additional information from their readers:  That the contents of the report were not only not credible... but they were ridiculous.
 * At least when Buzzfeed reported the story they provided the actual dossier. This allowed a critical reader to come to their own conclusion.  And I think most reasonable people would conclude that the "evidence" is ridiculous.  If not for Buzzfeed having released the dossier, CNN would still be reporting, as fact, that "17 intelligence agencies" had presented evidence that "Russia has compromising information on Trump".
 * How can CNN be a credible source when they intentionally withheld information? Whether intentional or not, their reporting had (or would have had) the effect of creating a false impression among their consumers that there was credible evidence that Russian had compromising information on Trump.  There is no such credible evidence.  The dossier is incredible.
 * As to 4chan, they were the ones who leaked that story to Ricky Williams which is how Christopher Steele got it. From him it went to McCain and then to FBI Director Comey and beyond.  It's actually very disturbing. 2601:47:4180:7953:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

US Gov't Agencies Conclusion Russia Intervened
My recent edit to conform the article text to the statements in the cited Washington Post article has been reverted. This is a DS violation, since it restored the defective wording that I challenged by reversion. Here is the WaPo statement that verifies the text that has been expunged: The response, unveiled just weeks before President Obama leaves office, culminates months of internal debate over how to react to Russia’s election-year provocations. In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election, leaking damaging information in an attempt to undermine the electoral process and help Donald Trump take the White House.

I hope that the verified text will now be restored. SPECIFICO talk  21:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no DS violation there. You made a change, and I reverted it. It would, however, be a DS violation for you to restore your contested wording. If you look the additional sourcing I included, you'll see that the word "accused" is appropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This gambit to dilute and deny the verified statements in the cited recent sources by -->>adding a third source from two months prior, when the full story and full conclusion were not yet published -- is wan and risible. Kindly reinstate the verified text that cites the most recent sources - December 29 I believe, and as always, if future events require changes in the article to conform to the mainstream narrative of events, I expect those also to be conformed to future article text.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Accuse" is better than concluded in terms of language usage. The U.S. government makes accusations but it is actually individuals within them who draw conclusions.  In this case conclusions were drawn by intelligence teams.  BTW now that Trump is president, do you plan on treating his administration's pronouncements with the same degree of reliability as Obama's?  TFD (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the published source, not the speakers we must parrot. If in the future the intelligence assessment is RS reported to have changed, then the article must be adjusted to reflect that. In the future. But there can be no doubt that the transparent ploy of adjusting it to the past is a bizarre bit of nonsense. I'm sure most editors agree that this feeble gambit of using a deprecated press account several months past its sell-by date is unworthy of this community. SPECIFICO  talk  23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The current article overwhelmingly conforms to the official US-govt narrative, with some commentary saying that the publicly-available evidence may be a rough around the edges (and plenty of others saying the case is ROCKSOLID). Unlike several established media outlets, the article does not call the Russian angle "alleged," and treats it as proven fact. If you delete the the few critical bits, you will simply turn the article into an a blatant propaganda piece, thereby discrediting it (at least until the US govt declassifies it's "best evidence", if it has any). If you want to go down that route, it's fine by me (though others disagree).  Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, your assessment is incorrect. The article overwhelmingly conforms to sources. The word "rocksolid" does not appear anywhere in the article - which means you're basically attacking strawmen. The article does not "conform with the official US-govt narrative". Really, have you checked in on the "official US govt" lately? All it does is report the assessments of the US intelligence community as it is reported in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Both of the sources I added use the word "accuse," so no, I'm not going to reinstate your change to the lede. I trust that you won't add it back in without consensus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please respond to my point. This is an article about contemporary events. Therefore we use the most recent Reliable Sources. A deprecated source from two months prior to the stable consensus version is defective on its face. Perhaps you can explain to the community why my edit solely for the purpose of conforming the article text to the stable consensus sources would prompt you to introduce an out-of-date deprecated source that describes a previous date, no longer current and how that could possibly improve the article's lede. The lede is written in the present tense.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just read the sources. The USA Today source, from 29 December, should lay your concern about using recent sources to rest. In any case, the fact that the US government has made accusations against Russia hasn't changed. Although more details have come out since October, the fact that the US government has "accused" Russia of hacking to interfere with the elections is still an accurate summary. There's really nothing more to add. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to the central point, which is that you substituted weaker sources and then violated DS by inserting them prior to talk page consensus. That means that at some point your edit will disappear. SPECIFICO  talk  03:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "weaker sources"? You keep claiming anything you don't like is weakly sourced, no matter whether it's sourced with reputable newspapers or not. And you keep throwing around accusations of DS violations, your theory seeming to be that all your edits are protected from reversion by the sanctions. When you change the article (as you did in the lede) and it is challenged, that is not, in itself, a DS violation, so stop constantly threatening us all. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"Gessen allowed as how XXXx"
She is not Huckleberry Finn. Speak English! She stated she concede, she noted, she observed. She did not "allow" -- Really! SPECIFICO talk  01:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * She did not concede (to whom? WP:WORDS, and blatant POV), she did not "note" (it's not a fact), he did not observe (there's nothing to "observe"). So think harder. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Allowed" may be overly complex English. Would it be worth having a quick look through the list at WP:SAID? Or just using "said"? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Used in this way, "allowed that" is normal English. I think it's more correct than "permitted that." -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO is right that "allowed..." is sort of archaic or at least nonstandard (nice reference to Huck Finn by the way). I think the current wording is improved. -Darouet (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a tendentious transformation of a non-statement into something that appears to mean something. Of course it might be true that there is conclusive evidence of Russian involvement in hacking the DNC, just as there might have been conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.  Rational people base their conclusions on evidence, they do not tailor the evidence to support their pre-conceived opinions.  So Gessen would accept conclusive evidence if presented, but is saying it has not been presented.  TFD (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right, at least within the confines of the cited article. But TFD, as you know, the expression "allowed as how", at least among those who once used that archaic regional idiom, carried a meaning far stronger than MG's "conceivable" in this article. Anyway, what she called weak was the discussion of Putin's intent, not the fact that he hacked. So this was not a good choice of reference to suggest that the whole Russian hacking thing was a fabrication. SPECIFICO talk  04:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Allowed as how" is an archaic regional idiom, but "allowed that" is standard modern English. I feel this point is not that important, though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Allowed as how Xxxx" is just some random gibberish SPECIFICO wrote. My text stated "allowed that." SPECIFICO has a pattern of heatedly disputing texts which s/he has not read, even tweet-sized ones. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Literacy: Thanks for your concern.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Twain often uses "allowed" as in "stated". "allowed as how XXXx" is your contribution to "literacy", though I don't see the relevance. Also, I know this talk page is totally out of control, but let's try to keep it G-rated. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Kovalev
Alright, I'm fine with Greenwald being in there given the sources provided by FallingGravity above. But can someone explain why this sentence is in the article:

"Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who runs a website debunking Russian propaganda, said: "There are many legitimate reasons to criticise RT, but the report singles out the channel for all the wrong reasons. Covering protests and other social and political fissures is a perfectly legitimate media activity."

It appears to be completely off topic. It's plopped right smack in the middle of text about other stuff and just looks like someone accidentally copy pasted it in there.

So can the editors who keep restoring this please explain what the relevance of this sentence is? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * But the problem with all the quotes and snippets culled from obscure websites and the press of foreign lands is that they are being used for a SYNTH message. The various unclassified public statements are not the basis for the US Gov't conclusion that the Russians interfered.  The pundits cited here are for the most part not the top civilian experts but rather a collation of individuals who were willing to shoot from the hip for a little free press time and -- as SZ states -- possibly to get some consulting and corporate I.T. business for themselves.  Their comments for the most part relate to the unclassified statements as if the US Gov't conclusion was based solely on the evidence revealed therein.  This leads to the SYNTH conclusion that the US Gov't conclusion was based on insufficient data and analysis.  So in a nutshell, we have comments about the published reports being used to insinuate that the US Governement had no sufficient evidence for its conclusion.  More experienced, accredited and recognized technical experts in counterespionage, cybersecurity, and software have not been cited.  One or two of the commentators cited in this article are notable experts whose opinion is worth mention in an encyclopedia. The rest is a fruit soup of irrelevant internet babble that should be scraped from the article.  The current Greenwald bit, which treats him as a journalist is innocuous.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Kovalev's point is to dispute the conclusion that "Russian propaganda" was particularly mendacious, influential or threatening during the 2016 election. "Russian propaganda" is posited as one of the ways Putin interfered in the election. It's like if Putin were to blame all his problems on Radio Free Europe and liberals connected to the USG. But what does Kovalev know about Russian propaganda? What you fail to understand is that your "experts" (those with access to the hypothetical secret documents) are all US spies, and as such are particularly suspect WP:PRIMARY sources who cannot be cited for anything other than their overt position on an issue. Like the KGB, these sources are not WP:RS in the slightest. How hard is this to understand? Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "obscure websites and the press of foreign lands": What do you mean by "foreign lands"? Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, and Germany and France aren't "foreign lands" any more than the United States is a "foreign land." The Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde are every bit as reputable and as weighty as any US newspaper. And by "obscure websites," do you mean the website of one of the United States' oldest political and social commentary magazines, Harper's? Those are the sorts of sources you've been trying to rule out of the article - very reputable sources that happen to have cited views you don't agree with. "This leads to the SYNTH conclusion that the US Gov't conclusion was based on insufficient data and analysis." If the Süddeutsche Zeitung literally puts the phrase, "aber kaum Beweise" (in English, either "but hardly proof" or "but hardly any solid evidence") into their headline, then I think it's safe to say that the idea that the US government hasn't provided proof isn't WP:SYNTH, but rather a direct paraphrase of a reliable source. We can't have this subjective ruling out of major national newspapers, motivated by political dislike of who those newspapers are citing or what those newspapers are writing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "obscure websites and the press of foreign lands" Yes, We will definitely delete the source now that that we know it's foreign.


 * "This leads to the SYNTH conclusion that the US Gov't conclusion was based on insufficient data and analysis." Where does the article state this "conclusion"? Reliable sources are making conclusions about publicly available documents and evidence, not hypothetical documents and evidence. Wikipedia editors in turn use existing reliable sources. Where RS engage in speculation we commonly apply WP:CRYSTAL, though apparently not in the case of Max Boot's opinion (included in the article) that the classified evidence which he hasn't seen must be pretty good. As TFD said, this discussion has crossed over into some alternative universe. I am beginning to doubt whether human language, nevermind conventional rationality, can adequately model SPECIFICO's train of thought. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, WP:SYNTH -- the conclusion is implicit. ?   Right?  SPECIFICO  talk  21:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, I doubt anyone beside you is confused about this, but we can state the obvious and put out a disclosure saying that these sources are referring to evidence they have access to (generally, evidence that is in the public domain). For most people, this is obvious. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @**When you write, of your own volition "Where does the article state this "conclusion"?" -- where you should have been discussing unstated SYNTH conclusions -- it is perfectly clear that either you do not know what SYNTH means on WP or you're trying to deflect and avoid responding to the my clearly framed concern above. Either way, this thread appears done.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm glad (hopeful) it's over. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's never over. I don't know what you think SYNTH means or what exactly is SYNTH about parts of this article, and I have no patience left. So here it goes:
 * If you think there is a problem, the burden is on you to concretely demonstrate its existence. I don't know if this is some new trend in philosophical discourse, but you really need to stop demanding that others prove a negative. That's a truism.
 * If you think the problem is so subtle that it cannot be nailed down to any specific wording, you still need to concretely describe the problem, otherwise there is absolutely nothing to talk about. The way to do address those kinds of "implicit" problems is to propose alternate text. But that would require actual research, as opposed to hand-waving and pressing  on the article page, which for most users would constitute vandalism.

Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the Guardian piece is interesting and could be cited, with or without Kovalev's commentary, but that Marek is correct to remove the commentary from this particular location. -Darouet (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Kovalev's statement is probably the most worthwhile on in that article. I think there are plenty of places where it could be inserted (outside the "experts and scholars" ghetto): namely the place where Russian propaganda or the JAR report is discussed. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Obama administration functionaries accused Russia
Article lede is misleading. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Marginal commentary"
Regarding the commentary by Jeffrey Carr and Scott Ritter, which were recently removed, I'd like to ask, "what constitutes 'marginal commentary'?" Is it commentary an editor dislikes? Is it commentary that was made in the margins of a page? I'm just curious, because looking through the history of this page, the only pattern I can see is that "marginal" views seems to always coincide with views editors applying the label personally disagree with. I'm wondering, for example, why a HuffPost piece written by Robert McElvaine is not "marginal," while the views Jeffrey Carr, cited in Harper's Magazine, are "marginal." If someone has a better explanation than the one I've proposed, please enlighten me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. By the same token, comments by Glenn Greenwald have been refuted, claiming he was "not an expert". Well, if Greenwald is not qualified commenting on US intelligence, then neither are 80% of cited commenters. I shall now restore this material. — JFG talk 09:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a concerted effort on this page to remove criticism of the US government or intelligence agencies under the guise of "UNDUE". However, UNDUE is part of NPOV, which tries to represent all major viewpoints of a topic published by reliable sources. Thus, if a reliable source publishes an opposing view, then it's our job to report it with proper attribution. That said, I've removed nonspecific criticism like "cybersecurity services may overstate their conclusions," though more specific accusations can be included. FallingGravity 09:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree about the misuse of WP:UNDUE. I don't think, however, that the "overstate" claim was non-specific - it was made directly in the context of the Russian hacking allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as Greenwald goes, "widely known" is not the same thing as "qualified". He's not. Not an "expert". Seriously, it's like everytime Greenwald sneezes some starry eyed fan of his has to run over here to Wikipedia and try to cram it into some article somewhere. I'd say Carr and Steinberg are borderline. Ritter also not credible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinion about Greenwald doesn't change the fact that he is one of the major global media voices at present. This looks a lot like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Do you have any evidence based arguments to remove Greenwald's commentary? -Darouet (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What the hell is a "major global media voice at present"? He got some money. He started a newspaper. He uses the newspaper to pontificate and print his own opinions. It's basically a WP:SPS. And burden is on you to show Greenwald's commentary is somehow notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that breaking the Snowden case speaks for itself, as does being the flagship writer for The Intercept. But if you look at wikipedia page hits over the last two months you'll see that compared to other figures mentioned in this article, Greenwald does pretty well:
 * Ben Rhodes - 1,200
 * Andrei Soldatov - 1,600
 * Mark Galeotti - 2,000
 * Adrian Chen - 6,100
 * Michael McFaul - 16,700
 * James R. Clapper - 143,300
 * James Comey - 163,500
 * Glenn Greenwald - 182,800
 * It's almost comical to look at. He is significantly more read about on Wikipedia than CNN anchors Jim Acosta, Christiane Amanpour, Wolf Blitzer, Fareed Zakaria... -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not clear why this should be some kind of criteria. I can find all sorts of articles about all sorts of ridiculous people who get viewed more than these - doesn't mean we'd include them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a "ridiculous" person broke one of the biggest stories about American intelligence ever, right up there with the Pentagon Papers and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. The journalist who was famous enough that he got poached from The Guardian by a billionaire looking to set up an independent news agency (sorry, I mean a "rag"). Look, nobody is asking that you love the guy, but it would be enough for you to recognize that he's a very well-known journalist, especially on matters of US intelligence, who broke one of the biggest stories of the decade. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean we exclude what he writes from Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You're trying very hard to miss the point. No, I did not say Greenwald was "ridiculous". What I said is that it's silly to determine someone's notability or appropriatness for this article based on the number of views their Wikipedia article had recently. I can find SOME OTHER NON GREENWALD ridiculous person who tops Greenwald's number but that doesn't mean we should include them. Understand? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently nothing will ever convince you. What if I start attacking the credibility of this Adrian Chen character whose biggest claims to fame is seeing patterns of online trolls and making inferences about how all of this was organized directly by Mr. Putin because he happens to hold a grudge against Mrs. Clinton? How childish is that? Oh sure, he's an "expert" because he once outed a troll for clicks and profit. Lack of ethics much? — JFG talk 23:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently you're completely wrong since Falling Gravity convinced me. How did they do that? Oh! By bringing reliable sources to the table rather than engaging in WP:SOAPBOXING and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT commentary. Maybe... there's a lesson here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mr. Chen is cited in this article as a journalist, not a cybersecurity start-up consultant graduate student exchanging a free website mention for some facile and ultimately irrelevant comment about a redacted and unclassified report that's culled from the vastly more penetrating and undisputed official classified assessment. Anywaze, Mr. Chen is cited as giving a rather balanced report -- as befits a fine journalist.  So, what is your concern about Mr. Chen? We're all ears.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My concerns with Mr. Chen are stated above: making wide-ranging inferences from anecdotal evidence and having a history of unethical behaviour. But my real concern is with the one-sided pile-on about the CIA+US press narrative being the only "acceptable" one in this article. — JFG talk 07:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's more like every time anyone cites the Intercept for anything, someone throws a tantrum. The only argument is that the Intercept sometimes reaches different conclusions from the Daily Beast or the Wash Po. Therefore it's "undue". How on earth is this an argument? As for Ritter, he's obviously fringe. Remember the time he spread the conspiracy theory that Bush was overstating his WMD allegations? Thank God, RS like Judith Miller told us the "mainstream" view (mainstream for about 5% of the world's population). Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're not very good with sarcasm.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you just don't like it, although I doubt you'll find much to disagree with in my "sarcastic" comment. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"I shall..." shows admirable resolve -- but it is not apt to make any denials go more smoothly if there's an AE discussion about reinstating disputed text. SPECIFICO talk  18:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, another wikilawyering threat by . These constant threats are really out of line. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

VM's reinstatement of your edit, after it was challenged by reversion, is a clear violation of WP:ARBAPDS. You are also running dangerously close to breaching these sanctions by edit warring to keep your edit - despite the fact that it was challenged by reversion - by repeatedly threatening all who disagree with you. Stop threatening other editors, stop edit warring, and use the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bass Ackwards, m'lady. Please review the policies and Arbcom decision and sanctions.  That will save the talk page from a lot of clutter.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Reading through that case, I have no sense whatsoever that you are right to reinstate your preferred version, while others are prohibited from doing so. On the other hand, the very bad editing environment that the case describes applies, perfectly, to this situation. The issue of consensus and good faithed editing behavior will be especially difficult for all of us to resolve on our own, given the acrimony that has been seen on this page. SPECIFICO there is plenty of blame to go around for that, but your constant accusations and threats go a long way to creating a battleground atmosphere here.


 * I think maintaining mainstream voices who are skeptical of definite Russian involvement is very important to this article. The recent RfC, in which a majority of editors preferred to not include the word "allegations" in the title, nevertheless showed that many editors thought it should be present (the official RfC result was "no consensus"). Given the editing history here, I'd proposal mediation to resolve the question of whether Ritter or Greenwald can be removed from the article. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a note on your talk page asking you to back up your disparagement with some diffs so I can understand. I think you must have me confused with somebody else.  Francesco Scaramuzza - Inferno, Canto XXXIV.jpg -- I don't edit the article much here and I don't see any time I reinserted the same text twice. Anyway, the article talk page is not the place for personal attacks.   SPECIFICO  talk  20:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO, in this particular instance you removed article commentary by Carr and Ritter (on the 23rd), and your edit was reverted by Thucydides (same day). Casprings reinstated your edit (same day), and was this time reverted by FallingGravity (same day). A day later, VM again attempted to reinstate your edit, and I reverted him (24th).


 * I see that MrX had originally tried removing Ritter's view on the 18th, and was reverted by Guccisamsclub (same day).


 * On the other hand, I see that Carr's view was added on the 14th by Tobby72, and reverted on the same day by you. Carr was quoted by Andrew Cockburn in Harper's Magazine: a major political commentator in a major magazine. For that reason your one-word edit summary, "undue," is aggravating to other editors because it's clearly non-obvious, and therefore comes across as partisan., do you understand why editors would respond poorly to one-word removal of carefully sourced statements to major magazines/contributors? Nevertheless you were removing Tobby's added material (I haven't seen that it had been there earlier), and so you're technically correct that this material may be removed according to the general sanctions. I'll self revert on that point.


 * You're correct that you haven't edited again (in recent history) on this particular content - though I wrote "repeatedly edit warred" because the last time you threatened me with DS, I saw that I was in fact reinstating content you yourself had added. -Darouet (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so why are you reinstating content which was clearly challenged. I mean hell, you provide the diff where Specifco (or Mr. X) challenges the material yourself, then proceed to violate discretionary sanctions anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The point made above about removing an opinion by a well-known commentator in a prestigious magazine with the one-word edit summary "undue" is really the crux of the issue, and I haven't seen or  answer it yet. It's all well and fine to say that we have to wait for consensus before reinstating challenged material, but when the editors who removed it are completely unwilling to justify the removal in greater detail than "undue," what are we supposed to do? This looks very much like gaming the DS system - "challenge" content by vaguely referencing some random Wikipedia acronym, then refuse to engage on that content. The content that has been "challenged" cannot be restored, but nothing more than some extremely subjective grounds like "undue" or "not mainstream" (applied even to major national newspapers like the Süddeutsche Zeitung) is given. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The arbitration remedy states, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." MrX had attempted to remove material present for some time in the article, and their edit was "challenged (via reversion)." I self-reverted in an instance where content was added, and then quickly reverted, i.e. "challenged (via reversion)." If you read through the whole case, it becomes clear that the major issue is using the talk page or other normal, collegial means to resolve content disputes. There is no wikilawyering that allows one side to use DS to keep their "preferred version," but not another. Again, I'm suggesting that we go through mediation. You and I actually did that once and I think it was pretty productive. -Darouet (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This is getting tedious. Why not let the other editors "have at it"? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, let's keep calm and find a dignified way: I would approve mediation or WP:DRN about the credibility, balance and weight of various sources used in this article. — JFG talk 22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by "other editors" and "have at it?" I'd like to avoid POV-driven removal of mainstream criticism of this whole story. I also think it'd be helpful to find some context in which a productive conversation can be had about content, sources, where editors trust one another to edit constructively. I think that's possible and should be a goal. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * kay, just a thought. you guys may have too much integrity and diligence for your own good. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know every one of Wikipedia's policies, but I know enough about the five pillars to know that good editing practices, rigorous scholarship, and civility don't violate, but are rather the backbone of Wikipedia policies. -Darouet (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't want to look like I am ignoring this, since the title heading seems to come from my edit. That said, just have been busy.Casprings (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC) It's disruptive to put these personal attacks on an article talk page. And it's tendentious to repeat the same mistaken accusations without reading the policies, guidelines and Sanctions you keep misinterpreting. No more of this on the article talk page, please. SPECIFICO talk  00:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: in response to your accusations, I provided diffs showing that VM violated the sanctions you've invoked. You have provided no evidence. What is your response to the diffs I provided? If you are seriously interested in going to AE, either take me or VM there, or stop making empty and inflammatory threats. If you have any commentary on content whatsoever, please provide that. I am tired of threatening remarks. They begin to look like a pattern of personal intimidation: that would not be tolerated in a professional environment and I would be amazed if we had to put up with it here. -Darouet (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, what you inadvertently showed is that you (or Gucci) actually violated the sanction. Like I said, you linked to the edit where the content was challenged yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , show it. You can't keep making these assertions without explaining them, with diffs. laid out the case above, with diffs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, don't hat my comments in response to your accusations. Either don't make them, or back them up. -Darouet (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Policy does not say we should take the view we prefer, treat it as fact and ignore opposing views. Mainstream media are still treating the "interference" as allegations, unlike the title of this article.  So it is correct to mention opposing views.  TFD (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How did that reasonable comment land in this unrelated location? This thread is about citing the opinions of non-recognized individuals including the self-published journalist  Greenwald as significant experts whose opinions need to be in the article.   SPECIFICO  talk  03:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't take your concern about Greenward seriously at all, because that concern does not extend to other non-cyber-sec-experts in the "Experts" section, when those people make claims you WP:LIKE. And the fact that you are at pains to delete Carr as cited in Harpers, shows that you have no concern for "expertise" whatsoever. Calling GG "self-published" is tendentious and—strictly speaking—not true. You and VM not using RS, "recognized", "self-published", "marginal" etc in a neutral way, nor are you backing them up with sourced arguments (or any arguments). Remember the onus is on you to prove how exactly the Intercept is "unreliable". "Undue" is proof of nothing, nor is it a magic word to make stuff you don't like go away. These are just slogans/slurs that reflect your personal feelings and opinions. And they deserve exactly the same amount of consideration as fact-free invectives like "lamestream media" or "Russophobic Western press": none. Volunteer Marek seems to have a visceral hatred for GG and, as he puts it, "his rag" (the Intercept), which he frequently substitutes for argument (I can find the diffs if anyone seriously doubts this). Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Please review the meaning of "tendentious". 2. I have not edited this article much at all, but I have argued against many non-expert "experts" who, in addition to the self-published non-expert journalist, include largely consultants who were available on short notice to provide snippets to bloggers and journalists rather than true accredited technical and national security experts. I've also raised the issue that RS state that the JAR for example does not claim to present the entire file, including conclusive classified evidence, upon which the fact of Russian intervention was verified by all experts who in fact were privy to the full file. 3. Please review WP:BURDEN which explains that the onus is on the editor who wishes to include, not to exclude, bad sources. You have that one backwards. Finally, it's not constructive for editors to speculate about what other editors might "like." If that's a subject that interests you, please don't share it here.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:BURDEN which explains that the onus is on the editor who wishes to include, not to exclude, bad sources. For the thousandth time: why are they bad? Have they been clearly debunked? Great, tell us how, and we can delete them. Has someone challenged their conclusions? Great, cite these people. You just think the Intercept is "bad", unlike the "good" American outlets who happen to be less critical of the US govt? Ok, whatever. I think those outlets are "bad" and the Intercept is "good", so what? I don't edit articles or talk pages on that premise, while, as Derouet has shown, you do. "including conclusive classified evidence, upon which the fact of Russian intervention was verified by all experts who in fact were privy to the full file". So you're going to base the article on a hypothetical body of evidence that's not in the public domain? How do you even cite that, technically speaking? But it's a highly original idea: before, governments had to at least concoct evidence, now they can just say they "have it" (Trump has "the best evidence"). Post-truth and all that... If you have special clearance, by all means leak this wonderful evidence to the press—THEN we can discuss it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See item N° 2 in preceding post. SPECIFICO  talk  17:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This back-and-forth about one particular source is getting really tedious. Just let it go, it's attributed, each reader can make up their own mind by reading the sources, pro and contra. That's what Wikipedia is all about, educating readers through the voices of reliable sources. If some editors are ready to fight to death against Mr. Greenwald's credibility, the correct forum for this is WP:RSN. If they prefer to continue this battleground behaviour on the talk page, the correct forum is WP:DRN. — JFG talk 18:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus to include these pundits. Rather than vent your frustration, you can post an RfC if you disagree. Please be sure to formulate a simple neutral statement. You might wish to run it up the flagpole here before posting. Ill-formed RfC's usually fail. SPECIFICO  talk  19:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with JFG, but I am also unhappy with the edit warring and acrimony, and think we would reach a consensus with the help of a neutral, third party. , I'd like to emphasize I'm happy to go to mediation if people feel strongly enough about this, are convinced their arguments really are in line with policy, and that a mediator would support their stance and/or help arrive at a solution. -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

, you write: There's no consensus to include these pundits. Sure, we understand you don't think Greenwald is credible. Now, by the same token, I could say there is no consensus to include Robert S. McElvaine, because I don't consider him credible. This kind of argument does nothing to improve the article. You've been here long enough to know that part of being a Wikipedian is accepting that you don't always get things your way, and you must accept the reasonable opinions of other contributors instead of lynching those who happen to disagree with you on the credibility of this or that source. — JFG talk 20:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RfC is spelled Ahrefsee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "There's no consensus to include these pundits." There's also no argument for excluding them. You and have simply asserted that a whole host of people are "marginal," "undue" or "not credible." You use these labels completely subjectively to remove any opinions you politically disagree with. This politically motivated editing has become obvious across a whole number of pages. Again, what makes Ritter (former chief weapons inspector in Iraq and intelligence expert) "not credible," or Pierre Sprey (legendary intelligence analyst, cited in a prestigious American political magazine, Harper's) "not credible," but Robert McElvaine (a relatively unknown commentator, published in HuffPost, a news aggregator of middling quality) credible? The only logic I see here is that the users labeling these views "not credible," "marginal," etc. don't politically like these views. I don't see any consistent stance of journalistic quality of the publication, or expertise and notability of the commentators. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The section is about "experts". Greenwald is not an expert. More, since he's publishing himself in his own newspaper, that's a WP:SPS and a non-notable opinion until other reliable sources comment on it. There. That's the argument, not a "simple assertion" as you falsely ... asserted. (and "legendary"? "prestigious"? Usually when people start in with the oleaginous, unctuous, and obsequious adjectives it's to divert attention away from the fact that there's not much there there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not the only editor and he must maintain certain standards, unless he wants to run the paper into the ground and alienate numerous contributors (none of which is happening). Does he have a "platform" at the Intercept? Sure, like any regular columnist. But it's not like you'd allow any non-GG commentary from the Intercept either, because you self-admittedly hate not only GG, but his whole "rag". BTW, Glenn Greenwald is a journalist. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As says, Glenn Greenwald is not self-published at The Intercept. He's an established journalist, who previously wrote for Salon.com and The Guardian, and now is one of the main contributors to The Intercept. He also happened to break one of the most significant cybersecurity-related stories in history. But, let's look past your political dislike of Greenwald. How do you explain the deletion of Scott Ritter's and Pierre Sprey's comments? Pierre Sprey is a very well known former intelligence analyst, and is quoted in Harper's, a very old and prestigious American political and cultural magazine (to be exact, Harper's is the 2nd oldest magazine still published in the US). Is your judgment of what is "not credible" better than that of the Harper's editors? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "until other sources comment on it" Tons of sources have reported and commented on Glenn Greenwald's opinions.
 * "He's not the only editor" - no, but he's the one who started it (though he doesn't fund it).
 * "he must maintain certain standards, unless he wants to run the paper into the ground and alienate numerous contributors" - true for any self published source that has a staff.
 * "you self-admittedly hate not only GG, but his whole "rag"" - you're making shit up.
 * "Glenn Greenwald is not self-published at The Intercept" - for all practical purposes, he is. He was approached with funding to set it up and run it. So yeah.
 * "He also happened to break one of the most significant cybersecurity-related stories in history" - while he was at the Guardian, not at the Intercept.
 * "let's look past your political dislike of Greenwald" - you're making stuff up.
 * "How do you explain the deletion of Scott Ritter's and Pierre Sprey's comments" - I'm more ambiguous about these, although I don't see much reason to include Ritter. Again, this is the "he was once good at baseball so we should take his advice about golf" kind of stuff. Don't see reason to include it. Lemme look at Sprey again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "until other reliable sources comment on it." Tons and tons of reliable sources have covered Glenn Greenwald's opinions. See: . If you don't accept these sources then I don't know what to tell you. FallingGravity 05:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, that'll work for me. I'm fine with Greenwald then though I would prefer we used one of these secondary sources rather than the Intercept.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're stretching the meaning of "self-published." Greenwald isn't even the sole founder of The Intercept. Jeremy Scahill is another founder. They have editors, such as Betsy Reed, formerly senior editor at The Nation, and Dan Froomkin, formerly an editor at the Washington Post. They have a wider journalistic staff, which writes most of the articles. This is clearly far from some self-published "rag" that Greenwald runs out of his basement. He and Scahill were approached to help set up The Intercept because they were well known journalists who wrote on "national security issues" with an independent bent. If you really want to establish that The Intercept is self-published, then take it up with the reliable sources noticeboard, and notify us here. I doubt you'll succeed, but by all means, take a shot and let's have this cloud of suspicion you're trying to create cleared up. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not accept you hate GG and move on? But since you asked: here's VM saying he "can't stand reading GG", after GG's criticism of a defamatory Guardian piece made The Guadian issue a retraction. I know, insufferable, and completely unreliable, unlike the Guardian.  Here's VM saying "GG's rag" is unreliable (exactly like Fox News and a blog post by John Pilger, I kid you not) for reporting on a simple fact about the contents of the Podesta emails. There is a bunch of other commentary and edits from VM, where he insists that the Intercept is not-RS, wp:SPS, undue, ad nauseam, but without giving any contradicting sources to show that Greenwald is full of shit (cause they don't exist). We're all familiar with that, so I trust there's no need to demonstrate.  His attitude toward people tangentially associated with GG, like Assange follows the same general pattern of partisan hostility. To be fair, hatred for GG and whistleblowers has become pretty endemic lately in the mainstream American press, and among wikipedia editors, so it's not just VM. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, assessing the magazine critically is not "hating it". You're ascribing opinions and feelings to me in order to try and devalue my argument. Because you don't really have one yourself. Why do you hate America? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dessert is spelled J-E-L-L-O. SPECIFICO  talk  21:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: cat (the animal, spelled A-N-I-M-A-L) is spelled C-A-T (not K-A-T). Just saying... Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * p.s., I hadn't noticed it before but come to think of it, the McElvaine bit is UNDUE in my opinion. So nstead of coming here AH-HA and all, why didn't you just delete it and see whether anyone cares??? SPECIFICO  talk  21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And Putin is spelled T-R-O-L-L. Whatever he says must be Ahrefsee'd to death… — JFG talk 23:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, mediation has its limits and would not be helpful here where a group of editors is determined to present a narrative regardless of evidence or policy. One of them is now arguing that if someone's article is published by a company that publishes their articles they are by definition self-published. Mediation only works if we all accept the same policies and guidelines and generally accepted definitions and rules of logic. TFD (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, he was saying that a column i"s "self-published" if its author happens to be on the editorial board of the paper that publishes said column. It's not really true, but it's something to cling to. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually not even that. What I'm saying is that if someone is approach by an investor with funding to start a media outlet, then that someone starts a media outlet with that funding and becomes its editor, and then uses that media outlet to publish their own pieces, it's pretty much self published. If someone came to me and said "here's 500 million bucks go start a newspaper" and then I used that to publish my opinions of the world in it, that would be self-published regardless of what title I effectively gave myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So your problem with the Intercept is too much editorial independence and lack of market pressure? Or that its editors (not only GG) contribute content? Some combination of the two? Anyway, you may continue to call it "self-published" according to your own definition, but it's not WP:SPS. It's also not as if GG treats this "rag" as some kind of personal blog, which is something you are implying. If you go to theintercept.com (consult with your doctor first, in case of emergency, go to the Daily Beast and read an article on Russian propaganda immediately), you'll have to scroll quite a bit before you find the first GG article, and the article reports on the death of a Brazilian anti-corruption judge in a plane crash (I know, just more pontification from the insufferable GG). If someone came to me and said "here's 500 million bucks go start a newspaper" and then I used that to publish my opinions of the world in it, that would be self-published regardless of what title I effectively gave myself. Greenwald is not the only editor, the paper is not his private property, and the operative word here is if... Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "So your problem with the Intercept is too much editorial independence and lack of market pressure" - Nope, that's not it at all. My problem with the Intercept is that it pretty much is a glorified blog for Greenwald, his own personal soapbox (though I guess they hired a few more people to make it less obvious). Will you quit putting words in my mouth and making up silly little strawmen and pretending I'm saying something I'm not? This is like the third or fourth comment from you where you write "So you're saying that {something ridiculous that I'm not saying at all}". It's sort of obnoxious and tiresome.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "glorified blog for Greenwald". I really don't see that. Greenwald writes one out of 20+ articles (many are not even opinion pieces). Anyway that's your personal opinion, and opinions are like assholes. I think MSNBC is a unglorified soap-box for the DNC, and the Wash Po is a glorified soapbox for the moneyed elite. [edit] Should I get a medal? I would never attempt to delete a serious source using the kind of lazy arguments I'm hearing here. It takes several unimpeachable sources and paragraphs of careful analysis to DEBUNK a source. And it takes consensus to call a source UNDUE. You've got neither: all I'm seeing is handwaving. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gucci, if those words really represent your approach to editing Wikipedia, they disqualify you from editing here. WP is not the place to "right great wrongs". If for whatever reason you cannot devote your efforts here to representing what is said in mainstream Reliable Sources such as Washington Post, you will end up like the many other POV American Politcs editors who are no longer permitted to disrupt these articles. The rest of us are volunteering our time and attention to follow WP site policy and guidelines. SPECIFICO  talk  16:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think is perfectly in line here. The Intercept was founded by a number of journalists (including Greenwald and Scahill), and has a wider editorial team. It's clearly not Greenwald's blog. I'd admit that it has a different editorial outlook than the Washington Post, for example, but each news outlet has some sort of overall editorial leaning (and I think the Washington Post's editorial bent is of a similar magnitude). I don't think anyone would deny that MSNBC is closely aligned with the Democratic party, but that doesn't mean that we rule them out as a source.
 * A major problem here is, as I said at the outset of this section, some editors are trying to rule out certain commentators and sources, based, it seems, on entirely subjective grounds. And those subjective decisions just so happen to align nearly 100% with those editors' political leanings. I think that needs to be pointed out, and such behavior needs to stop. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * you will end up like the many other POV American Politcs editors who are no longer permitted to disrupt these articles. The rest of us are volunteering our time and attention to follow WP site policy and guidelines. My thoughts exactly. How much longer do you plan to keep this up? PS. you did not understand the point I made at all, or perhaps pretended not to so that you can wag a finger in my face . Obviously, you and VM are the only editors here who are struggling—genuinely and disruptively struggling—with the idea that reliable sources are not necessarily those you like. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "you will end up like the many other POV American Politcs editors who are no longer permitted to disrupt these articles. The rest of us are volunteering our time and attention to follow WP site policy and guidelines." Again,, you choose to issue threats that you'll try to get editors who differ with you banned. This sort of bullying behavior is really unacceptable.
 * You wrote in this revert that commentary by "Tibia" (Matt Taibbi, actually) is "not noteworthy and undue." He was published in Rolling Stone, and he's a well known commentator on American politics. I'm wondering what makes his published opinion, in particular, less noteworthy or due than that of Michael McFaul, Robert S. McElvaine, Joseph Steinberg or Max Boot. Again, it looks like you're going through the article and systematically looking for ways to remove opinions you disagree with, justified with the usual fig leaf of a couple handy policy names. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Specifico but I'm guessing it's because those guys are experts in this area, and Taibbi is not. Alex Jones is also a "well known commentator on American politics. So what? And let's not pretend like Taibbi is some Woodward and Bernstein. He writes/wrote amusingly worded opinion pieces meant to provoke. Not really suitable for this or most topics, unless somehow his works get commented upon widely.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For those unaware Taibbi spent 11 years in Russia (publishing a tabloid paper among other things.) That doesn't necessarily qualify him as an expert but removing his source while retaining Chen, who has little experience with either Russia or cyber security, seems inconsistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmhh… So now, the suitability of a secondary source for inclusion in Wikipedia shall be measured by the abundance of tertiary-source comments on this secondary source's work? This is honestly one of the weirdest arguments I ever read about sourcing policy. Let's call it the WP:METASOURCING criterion! — JFG talk 23:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah this just throwing completely random labels at an issue hoping that something sticks There is not even a plausible attempt at making it stick. Just throw random WP:CAPS one after another, leaving other editors puzzled as to how to respond to something so meaningless. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To my previous point about removing sources you don't like. One could easily make a case (an actual case, backed by evidence and logic) for deeming the Washington Post unreliable for this article. The Washington Post published at least two serious hoaxes (bordering on propaganda) on this very topic: that Russia tried to hack Vermont's electrical grid and that PropOrNot's McCarthyite list had some basis in serious research. Both were debunked by numerous RS, with the Intercept being the first to do so. For its part, the Post has yet to admit error and issue a full retraction of either story. So let's see: (a) we've found that the Post got two relevant stories flat wrong, but won't fully admit it; (b) we've seen that the Intercept quickly corrected the Posts coverage in both cases; (c) nobody here has identified any factual errors—nevermind ones as serious as the Posts—in Greenwald or the Intercept's coverage of the present topic. SPECIFICO's conclusions? (a) The Intercept is unreliable and must be deleted immediately; (b) how dare you say bad things about the Post—you'll be banned! (I earlier gave my "opinion" of the Post as a thought experiment—I haven't actually argued that any sources need to be deleted this article). WTF? Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh please, take this conspiracy theory mongering somewhere else. They made an error with the Vermont story and quickly corrected it, and the PropOrNot thing is just your own dearly held opinion. Also see false equivocation, whataboutism and WP:OTHERSTUFF. And honestly, if you want to seriously argue that WaPo is unreliable, please go to WP:RSN and make your case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You really have to engage with the point, without simplifying down your answer to a few acronyms. You and have been labeling all sorts of reliable sources as "not mainstream" or "undue," asserting that certain journalists are either not really journalists or "not credible." All  pointed out above is that while you try to throw out various reliable sources, you see no problem with the Washington Post, which has made two very serious journalistic errors in its reporting on the hacking affair. Neither was as small as you suggest: even a minimal amount of fact-checking would have told the WaPo that its Vermont story was completely baseless, yet they published it with a sensationalist headline, and they still haven't completely corrected the original article. In the PropOrNot article, WaPo published a completely unverified list of supposed Russian agents, fellow travelers, and other baddies, and have rightfully received a huge amount of criticism for doing so. But instead of calling WaPo "not mainstream" and trying to rule it out as a source for this article, you've targeted The Intercept, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde, among others. The only pattern I see is that you agree with what some of the sources are writing, and not with what others are writing. Honestly, that's what it looks like to me, so I'd like to know if there's some other, more legitimate rationale behind what you consider "marginal," "not mainstream" and "not credible." -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is just you and Gucci sensationalizing minor errors and employing hyperbole to make it seem like something that wasn't. PropOrNot article did not publish a "list of Russian agents". Like I said, this is mostly "whataboutism". A legitimate, reliable sources makes an error and then corrects it (indeed, the willingness to admit errors and correct them is part of what makes them reliable). You want to use that as an excuse to justify using other non-reliable sources. You're also making stuff up - while I don't care much for Intercept and do think that it's basically Greenwald's platform for publishing his own views (so yes, it's SPS), I have NOT "targeted" SD or Le Monde - what in the world are you going on about? This isn't to say that I've never criticized something they've done (honestly, who can remember) but I do certainly see them as reliable. Again, what the fudge are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What I'm talking about is obvious: you and have been systematically deleting material you disagree with from the article (see, for example, your recent mass deletions from the article), with little more than vaguely applied acronyms as justification. The Süddeutsche Zeitung's reporting was deemed "not mainstream," and therefore removed (until enough editors insisted on adding it back in). Seymour Hersh's opinion is mysteriously labeled "undue". One set of opinions (which you just happen to agree with) covered by a certain TechCrunch article are fine to include, but the one opinion you disagree with is somehow "undue". A minimal reference to the consequences of the alleged Russian hacking is apparently an attempt to create a "POVFORK", and must therefore be removed (twice, in fact). These are the sorts of deletions I'm talking about, justified by vague references to acronyms. Why you consider some material from reliable sources to be "marginal," "undue," or "not mainstream" is not explained, and the only pattern I see is that the things you label as such happen to align with what your personal dislikes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * One more time. What in the hell are you talking about??? It is not obvious at all. In fact, it's downright false. You say that I removed material from an article (hysterically calling it "mass deletions" when in fact it was just a couple crappy sentences) and then you claim that I said somewhere that Suddeutsche Zeitung was "not mainstream". That's two falsehood right there. The first implied - by mentioning SZ right after mentioning my deletions you suggest that what I removed was from SZ. It was not. The second explicit - that I claimed somewhere that SZ is "not mainstream". This is completely false. How am I suppose to engage in constructive good faithed conversation with someone who just sits there and makes shit up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "How am I suppose to engage in constructive good faithed conversation with someone who just sits there and makes shit up?" You could start by stepping back, taking a couple deep breaths, and then reading what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the editing behavior of you and . That should be clear from what I wrote above. If you really don't understand what I'm asking you, then read my last few posts. It's actually quite simple what I'm asking you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're replying to my comments. And in these replies you state, quote, "The Süddeutsche Zeitung's reporting was deemed "not mainstream,"" right after linking to one of my edits (which you inaccurately also described as "mass deletions"). This very much looks like you're claiming that *I* said SZ was "not mainstream". If you are not saying this then please write your comments in a clearer manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you understood exactly what I wrote. Are you going to actually answer the question I posed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope. As far as I can tell you accused me of saying that SZ was "not mainstream", which is false. Please clarify if that's not what you meant.
 * Also, you're asking me to answer some question. I've read through your last xx comments in this thread. I don't see a question. The comment starting with "You could start by..." has no question in it. The comment starting with "What I'm talking about is obvious..." has no question in it. The comment starting with "You really have to engage with the point..." has no question in it. The comment starting with "You wrote in this revert..." is not addressed to me and also has no question in it. The comment starting with "I think Guccisamsclub is perfectly in line here. ..." has no question in it. The comment starting with "You're stretching the meaning of "self-published." ..." has no question in it (and it's unnecessarily trying to extend the bickering on an issue that's been settled). The comment starting with "As Guccisamsclub says... " oh wait, that one has questions in it. Except that... those questions are answered in my response right below it! (And did I mention this issue was settled?)
 * So there's no question(s) there just commentary by you (which borders on WP:SOAPBOX).
 * So, let's try this one more time. What. In. Helium. Are. You. Talking. About? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You're just displaying more bad faith right now. My question is literally in the very first post in this section, and I've repeated it several times now (including in the post beginning with, "You really have to engage with the point," which you mentioned). You keep dodging it. While dodging the basic question I'm putting to you, you've continued to remove more passages from the article with the same flimsy explanations I've been asking you to elaborate on here.
 * At this point, I think you're just trying to goad your fellow editors into some sort of reaction. As I wrote earlier, I also think you're deliberately gaming the DS system, by removing as much of the material you dislike as possible, with barely any explanation (mostly just vaguely applied acronyms). That material is then "challenged," and cannot be reinstated without consensus. But since you refuse to explain any sort of rationale for what you consider "undue," "marginal," etc., there's no way of reaching any sort of consensus. You'll just periodically delete more contributions that other editors carefully wrote and sourced, with some pithy edit summary (e.g., "Undue"), and then use DS as a shield for your deletions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. I am asking you why you keep insisting that I called SZ "not mainstream" when that is completely false. The comment beginning with "You really have to engage with the point" doesn't really have a question. Instead you say there, again, quote, "you've targeted The Intercept, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde, among others" which is complete and utter nonsense (except for the Intercept, though the wording of "targeted" is, again, hyperbolic. Saying something is a "self published source" is NOT "targeting" anything, it's just evaluating sources).
 * So your "basic question" is about what makes sources marginal? There's like eight walls of text here, you can't seriously expect me to know that eighty paragraphs later you're still referring to the same question. Which, btw, was immediately answered in so far as it was addressed to me. That second and third response there.
 * Also, please note that I never used the phrase "marginal" to describe anything here. You, presumably, titled this section "marginal commentary" and asked your question to complain about either SPECIFICO's or Casprings use of the term - your complaint being that they didn't explain what they meant by that. Oh, but wait! What's this... a diff? Yep, looks like. . So here you are, claiming the honor of having been the first one to refer to something as "marginal commentary", way before SPECIFICO or Caspring did. So... perhaps you'd like to answer your own question for us?
 * And oh yeah, I am being specific about the fact that I am "challenging" certain content, per DS, because past experience teaches that unless one is precise and explicit about that sort of thing, some joker is likely to come around, start an edit war and then pretend "oh but you never said it was challenged, this is longstanding content now, it's been in the article for more than three minutes, now you can't remove it" or something like that. So I'm just doing all of us a favor here and preventing future edit wars.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Marek, I would ask you to familiarize yourself with the pronoun "you," which can be both singular and plural, were it not for the fact that I know you understand what I've been writing perfectly well. "So I'm just doing all of us a favor here and preventing future edit wars." Surely you can see how going through the article and systematically removing opinions you dislike, without explanation (beyond some acronym), and then warning everyone that DS prevents them being re-inserted would be viewed very differently by other editors. Instead of viewing that as an effort at avoiding edit wars, I'm sure you can see how other editors would view that as a sign of bad-faith editing - that you want the article to reflect your opinions, and don't feel any desire to reach any sort of consensus with other editors. That's how I view it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

foreign lands
The government of Finland says that sex crimes are on the rise! -- So for the WP article about sex crime in Finland, if you really want to find a representative sample of mainstream views on what's up in Helsinki, you can just go google up the great newspapers of the world to check if they dialed up some pundits, consultants, grad students, and discharged military types who like to get their names in print:. cf WP:WEIGHT. Our job is to tell the mainstream view, not to sniff for truffles. SPECIFICO talk  22:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with those newspapers. Are they as reputable as Le Monde, the Süddeutsche Zeitung or The Independent? If they are, then they've done their homework before interviewing those "pundits, consultants, grad students, and discharged military types." Just because you don't like the opinions of the people the Süddeutsche Zeitung chose to interview, doesn't mean that you can suddenly label one of the world's better known newspapers "not mainstream." By the way, there is no "foreign land" here on Wikipedia. For all I know, you could be from Myanmar, and it wouldn't matter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You deny the meaning of mainstream. This violates the core of WP. The community rejects your view. Sad. SPECIFICO  talk  00:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * While I am sure it is of great concern to the Finns, particularly to those affected, I am not sure that this is a good subject for comparison with allegations of interference by a world superpower in the elections of another. We just would not expect that there would be the same coverage internationally. And, with respect to those publications & their nations, Argentina's La Nacion, Myanmar's Times, & Angola's Jornal do not have the same reputation as France's Le Monde or Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung; both the leading national daily in nations with traditions of strong, independent journalism. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Germany? Not really. SPECIFICO  talk  00:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nach '45. Ja. Wirklich. After '45. Yes. For real.  - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's about sampling. We're trying to find mainstream majority viewpoints. There are 30-50 US media organizations that have more in-depth, well-founded, accurate, verified coverage of US government and politics, and cyber-security too for that matter, than that German paper. So reaching out to the fringe to find some marginal punditry, based on no particular technical accreditation or recognition, is not apt to find the most significant comments or interpretations. It's just not likely, and in this case, it failed. So we don't use that stuff for an encylopedia.  It could be used to sell newspapers, to moot a discussion among friends or for many other purposes, but it's not the sort of sourcing that is useful here, given the mission and policies of WP.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 30-50 US media organizations, but perhaps only two or three of similar prominence as Le Monde or the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Moreover, coverage in Germany and France of this international issue might be systematically different than coverage in the United States. You wanted to rule out Le Monde and the SZ, and call them "not mainstream," simply because they are foreign. That's not a good reason for ruling out sources of this quality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see this is going over your head. It's not that they're foreign. You're simply recycling comments that have previously been refuted. SPECIFICO  talk  03:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hrm.. Surely, we should be trying to find all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and then represent them fairly ... in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Given the slight non-sequitur from the parent section, would it be possible to link the sources that are in question? And what is meant by it failed? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that on this page, several clear-minded policy-lovin' God-fearin' editors have identified and discussed most of the unworthy pundits and quotees -- some of them were discussed in detail (e.g. self-published Greenwald,) and others were challenged briefly noting the absence of any confirmation as to their standing as "experts" whose opinions belong in an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO  talk  01:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. If there are valid reasons why a source is not reliable, then it is not reliable. But merely being foreign is not one of those reasons. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody's said that the publications are "not RS" to my knowledge. Most of the recently contested material consists of snippets of opinion that are uninformed and misrepresented. It is a matter of WP:UNDUE weight and opinions from folks whose opinions are not important. Another thing you'll find on this article (since I believe you've arrived fairly recently) is that some of the writings/opinions of notable experts have been cherry-picked and dissected in order to change and misrepresent their meanings. An example is the bit from Masha Gessen, who is the sort of notable expert one might well include in this article, but whose opinion was misrepresented and edit-warred just recently when I tried to conform the article to the meaning of her writings.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Most of the recently contested material consists of snippets of opinion that are uninformed and misrepresented. It is a matter of WP:UNDUE weight and opinions from folks whose opinions are not important." "Uninformed," "not important" and "UNDUE" only by your personal evaluation - not by the evaluation of reliable sources like the SZ. This is my point in this section: you're just declaring every passage you politically disagree with "marginal," "undue," "not mainstream" and so on, regardless of who said it or where it was published (for example, the former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, quoted in a prestigious American political and social commentary magazine, Harper's, is declared "UNDUE." Why? Who knows. It just is.) -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, we have a comment that completely ignores core WP policy. It's not possible to determine WEIGHT and UNDUE from a single source. UNDUE and even FRINGE opinions still must be reported by RS, but over and over you repeat what's already been amply refuted. SZ may be RS for what some pundit or grad student said on the phone, who has questioned that?. I'm not going to repeat why it's undue. Just throw a dart at the screen and you'll most likely hit one of the times when it's previously been explained to you by one of the several editors who are trying to focus on policy here. I don't think you'll get very far hoisting Ritter up the flagpole, btw. SPECIFICO  talk  05:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The SZ is a reliable source. It found people who it felt were qualified to comment on the alleged Russian hacking. The journalists at the SZ are better able to decide who is and is not qualified than you are. "I don't think you'll get very far hoisting Ritter up the flagpole, btw." Because you don't like what he writes? He's a well known figure from intelligence, and he was cited in Harper's. Again, you're not qualified to tell us that Harper's was wrong to cite him. I don't see what legitimate methodology you're using to determine who is fringe, undue or marginal. It looks like you're making that decision in line with your political leanings. That's the problem I'm pointing out here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Cited?" "Harpers?" Opinion piece in the esteemed Huffington Post -- where shelfspace is free and where Ritter is on a book tour promoting his new tome published by the prestigious fringe house "Clarity Press" ? You keep ignoring the main point.  Just because something is published doesn't mean we give it weight in an encyclopedia. Huffpo is writing an entertainment site. WP editors are writing an encyclopaedia. This isn't foosball, it's editing.  You won't get very far hanging your hat on Ritter. Whatever career and credibility he had dwindled after his, er, incident(s). How does it support the credentials for "cyber-security and counterespionage expert' to get caught repeatedly sleazy-soliciting minors on the internet?  Cybersecurity expert.   SPECIFICO  talk  14:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see what Ritter's criminal record has to do with whether or not he's qualified to speak about intelligence matters. He was a long-time UN chief weapons inspector, and therefore heavily involved with intelligence. Pointing to his criminal record is just ridiculous. It just tells me you don't have any relevant criticisms to make. If that's the case, we can continue to cite his opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First off he wasn't "the chief weapons inspector" -- Second we're not looking for WMDs here, so if he was one of the ones Trump says screwed up the WMD thing, that is irrelevant to cybersecurity. Third the issue is not that he is a criminal. The issue is that he was an incompetent criminal because he didn't protect himself by CYBERSECURITY. He got caught by screwing up his cybersecurity. End of discussion!.  I wont' add LOL.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO, you have two decent options: a) actually add new content to get the article closer to where you want it to be; b) focus on one source and substantively challenge the claims made by that source using other reliable sources (this is known in layman's terms a "fact-checking" and "research"). Hopping from source to source, gripe to gripe, ad hominem to ad hominem (you're now dismissing Ritter because of his "er, incidents") and haphazardly sprinkling the resulting stream of BS with varied WP:CAPS, is a troll's strategy. After the all the walls of text you've written, I and several others still don't know what  you point is; I can't even tell if you've closely read a single relevant source, because nothing you've written demonstrates that you have. In fact it demonstrates the opposite (one could add a swath of analogous cases mentioned by TTAAC a while earlier)  However, I doubt anything besides the drama board can help at this point. Unfortunately filing a case would require endlessly analyzing and piecing together your mess of comments and contribs here, which are so hard to nail down that any normal person would balk at the task. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it's pretty clear from the above discussion that it's SPECIFICO who is discussing content (however much you disagree with them on it), and you're the one who insists on personalizing the issue and keep "discussing the editor, not the content". So you might wanna hold off on those implicit threats about "drama boards". Those often don't turn out the way people think they will.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I really wish I could disagree with anything SPECIFICO wrote. The problem is that SPECIFICO's statements are mostly either false (see above) or not even false, and mostly the latter. The problem is that the editor goes on and on about how "bunch of sources are UNDUE and BAD", setting the parameters so broadly that there is nothing specific (pun intended) to discuss. By way of contrast, it was at least possible to substantively debate your assertion that GG in The Intercept was SPS. I can't find one such assertion from SPECIFICO, with the exception of selectively disputing the expertise of a few sources in the expert comment section (including that of Carr one of the two specialists actually quoted in the section). If you have any concern about other editors, the only valid approach is to give them something specific and substantive to read and discuss. Instead we have catchall discussion threads with indecipherable text. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact It was I, SPECIFICO, who first stated that Greenwald bit is SPS here: so that puts all your concern about who's reading what in a different light. I also can't find an instance of the word "BAD" in my comments -- it's rather more imprecise than is my style.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I know for a fact that VM brought up SPS first, SPEC was merely repeating your assertion (without actually making any kind of argument). As for BAD,  "bad sources". Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And seriously, LOOK at the TITLES of the threads started by SPECIFICO. Do they look like the right way to start a focused discussion of concrete sources (which is ALL that we should be doing)? Why are you abetting this? Guccisamsclub (talk)
 * VM is first on the non-archived talkpage, not this edit you're linking to. A look into the archives confirms that you (SPECIFICO) were first on this talkpage overall. Congratulations. 16:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please cease and desist ad hominems, obsessive discussion of editors, and off-topic remarks. "Comment on content, not contributors." There are ample policy pointers on this page that need your attention. Thank you. SPECIFICO  talk  17:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very tired and would feel guilty spending any more time on this topic (it's not that important or interesting). I'll let you and VM continue ["improving"] the page. Welcome. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian general found dead in mysterious circumstances
Re:. WP:COATRACK (an essay, not a policy) says: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely". The removed text is very clearly about Russian interference in the US election. Yes, it is about the Donald Trump–Russia dossier but that dossier is about Russian interference in the US election. Notice that the essay, not policy, WP:COATRACK says "another subject entirely". There's no entirely here. It's the same subject.

Sorry, but this looks like more of the same WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT backed up by spurious references to irrelevant Wikipedia polic essays.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

And oh yeah, WP:COATRACK applies to articles as a whole, not to a single paragraph in a very large article such as this one. So yeah, completely irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's part of the story and belongs to the article. I would even add the grainy photograph of the victim that was published in the media.  However, it misses a key part of the story.  as written in The Telegraph, "Experts expressed scepticism about the theory. “As a rule, people like Gen Yerovinkin don’t tend to die in airport thriller murders,” said Mark Galeotti, an expert on the Russian security services."  It is actually very similar to the Murder of Seth Rich.  In an alternative theory, Rich was murdered because he was the source of the DNC leaked emails.  That belongs in the article too.  TFD (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree with and  on this one: I don't see any basis for simply excluding this from the article. Three out of the four references used to include the information were certainly reliable. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, with the caveat that so far, the only outlets treating the speculation of foul play are left-wing US/European outlets and the Daily Mail (because of course they are). This is on par with the dossier: we can't lend credence to any claims of foul play; we can only report that reliable sources are reporting on such claims. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem including this. It should go back in. RS Kansas City Star trumps Suddeutsche as source for Russia stuff, IMO. SPECIFICO  talk  15:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In my admittedly knee-jerk (but non-partisan) revert, I commented that this information was interesting while clearly more closely related to the dossier article, and suggested you place it there; what pushed you to add it here and not there? The link between the murder and the dossier is already speculation by media; then linking *that* murder to the general plot of Russian interference in the US elections 2.5 months after the election is over, that sounds closer to mystery thriller than encyclopedic work. — JFG talk 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you weren't replying to me, but I want to say that I agree. This should go in the section about the dossier, as that's the only connection it has to this. And yes, this does sound like the plot of a thriller novel and (despite being a raging-liberal-who-thinks-Trump-sucks) I have serious doubts about both this and the dossier. I'm literally waiting on the first RS to come up with some evidence against this dossier (as opposed to the doubts about its veracity almost every RS has expressed) to start advocating for removing it entirely. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a section here, and there's a separate article. Which were you intending?  SPECIFICO  talk  18:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and there's a separate article. Sometimes, I agree with the right-wing wiki haters. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To answer your question; I was referring to the section. I honestly had no idea we had an article about it, and I'd drop it into AfD right fucking now if it didn't have so much commentary on the talk page, and so little about deleting it. I highly doubt I could get a consensus to delete that article, but I don't for one second think this dossier deserves its own article. At least not until it makes a bigger impact than it has, or parts of it get confirmed as accurate. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The contents about the murder are now in the dossier page and don't need to be repeated here. And yes that article was ruled a Snow Keep… although the full dossier itself was ruled a copyright violation at Commons. — JFG talk 01:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The section presents a number of comments by experts but provides no indication of the weight of these different views in reliable sources. It should be mentioned at the beginning of the section, otherwise there is an implication that the experts quoted are representative of expert opinion.  TFD (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Interference not just meddling, but also fake news on social media
It's not about "when" but "what" and belongs in first paragraph with the other "whats" (hacking, etc.; I'm avoiding using a noun here)and denials. I added a short sentence to the first paragraph and left the sentence with Clapper's testimony in the chronological listing of the next two paragraphs. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for making a note on the talk page. I'll think about this a bit more before replying. I agree that some mix of chronology and thematic overview is best for the lead. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Article move to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia"
The article title currently makes an affirmative statement which is based on official, U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period - which those same agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging - and which has been disputed by independent media and academics, and which seems to attract increasing criticism with the progress of time (as in this month's newly released Stanford study). Should the title of this article being changed to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia?" BlueSalix (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Adding "alleged" does not deny the accuracy of the one-time claims by the CIA, it simply acknowledges this is an allegation and there is not a consensus concurrence in the same way there is with things like gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. We should be exceptionally cautious about sourcing social science articles to claims originating from secret police agencies and add appropriate caveats when we do. BlueSalix (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It would also be more in line with the tone of the article itself, which is neutral Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apollo The Logician - per suggestion, I've opened a requested move discussion, below. If you'd like, please re-register your !vote there. BlueSalix (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The RS cited in the article present a fairly mixed opinion that may not be accurately represented by the article's current title. LavaBaron (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * LavaBaron - per suggestion, I've opened a requested move discussion, below. If you'd like, please re-register your !vote there. BlueSalix (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you think the article should be moved, start a requested move discussion. Or don't, since this has already been proposed and rejected many times. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Under new management, let's remove their former titles?
I just noticed that the titles of the directors of DNI, FBI, and CIA were removed from the lede sometime in the last two days. Don't know if it was unintentional, along with several references that fell overboard, or if it's intentional, a case of "new management" in case of DNI and CIA. When Brennan, Comey, and Clapper said/concluded/stated what they did, they were the directors of their respective agencies, and one of them still is. If we want to point out that a person held a certain position at the time he did or said something but he no longer is, shouldn't we say "then-director" or whatever the title was? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking action on this. I'm glad this was restored. I was thinking of doing so when I saw your post, but since it is already taken care of...welll...
 * To me it does seem kind of strange that these removals happened in the first place. Oh well :>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I'll be happy to handle adding "then-". BlueSalix (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What the heck? You just removed the WaPo reference that I reinserted, did a whole lot of other stuff I haven't looked at yet, and then made the sentence pretty incomprehensible by adding "then-directors" etc. after the names, i.e., figure out yourselves who's who. It was just a question whether it's Wikipedia custom to use "then-director" for whoever held the title at the time. I'm changing it back to the previous version. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's already been done. Thanks, . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Challenging removal of material

 * Comment There was a massive, unilateral and undiscussed removal of RS, including The Nation, Stanford University and the Christian Science Monitor  by User:Volunteer Marek. All of the content removed is referenced higher up in this Requested Move, to support the Move; this is an apparent attempt to game the Move proposal in violation of Discretionary Sanctions. I have reverted in wholesale. Feel free to tweak any of this (or remove it after a discussion), but please don't just come through with a lawnmower and start cutting it down to game !votes. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is an unwarranted accusation. The content was challenged by removal, it shouldn't be reinserted. That was a DS violation so I suggest you undo yourself.   SPECIFICO  talk  21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't challenge unambiguously RS content by coming through with a hatchet and deleting it all. You challenge content by coming to the Talk page to discuss it. The fact that the deleted content was all specifically referenced in the Move discussion - and the Move proposal makes zero sense without it - makes this an obvious gaming attempt. As of now there has been no 1RR. I suggest Marek keep it that way. BlueSalix (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, then, thanks for the clarification. One might just as well assert that all of that off-topic UNDUE content was inserted by the video-gamer whitewash hordes. Let's allow the move poll to run its course to a sensible close. SPECIFICO  talk  21:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is out of control. See this and see below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Correction. There was a "massive, unilateral and undiscussed" POVing of the article by BlueSalix. So yeah, it got reverted. And per discretionary sanctions, since those changes were challenged they cannot be restored unless they get consensus here on the talk page. Numerous warnings and notifications have already been issued.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Stanford study and the fate of fake news
The Stanford study suggesting that fake news likely had little impact on the election has been widely cited - e.g. the SF Gate, The Hill, the IBT, NY Mag, and this Economist blog post. The material is challenged however on the grounds of WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK: this is an article about (alleged) Russian efforts to influence the election, and not about whether such efforts were successful.

The article's first lead paragraph states, "...Clapper continued on to allege meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign went beyond hacking, and included disinformation and the dissemination of fake news often promoted on social media." The article includes a section with the impeccably neutral title, Russian trolls, dedicated to allegations of bot farming to spread fake news.

Whether the Russian government was or was not involved in any such operations, any article purporting to described alleged "2016 United States election interference by Russia" would not only describe the allegations, but also some aspect of the interference itself. Did it succeed? I think that the Stanford research is a part of the answer to that question and well within the WP:SCOPE of this article. So would research showing that the hacks and fake news - whether or not really directed by the Russian government - actually did have an important impact on the outcome of the election. It's certainly plausible they contributed to Clinton's low favorability ratings. -Darouet (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Did it succeed? I think that the Stanford research is a part of the answer to that question" - this isn't hard. IF it IS indeed "part of the answer to that question" then it should be easy to find a source which actually discusses the study and Russian interference together. That's it. That's how we determine whether or not the study is "part of the answer to that question" and whether it is within the scope of this article.
 * The study might belong in the article on Fake News (although the concerns SPECIFICO raises about this being a working paper are valid too).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely. Augment the study with the tertiary sources to establish relevance within the article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is *literally* the definition of original research. No way. Unless you have a secondary reliable sources which discusses BOTH the study and *Russian* interference this is simply no go. It's just a straight up blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons to reject this material, but it's sufficient to say that it is a self-published working paper that got a brief mention on a website looking for speculation to fill its pages. So what?  There are millions of these little things all over the place on any conceivable subject. I'd say they're the academic equivalent of Cheese Doodles. SPECIFICO  talk  00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I linked to articles about the study written by the SF Gate, The Hill, the IBT, NY Mag, and this Economist blog post. Is that what you meant by "a brief mention on a website looking for speculation to fill its pages."? I'm not sure what you're referring to but you haven't addressed my comment. -Darouet (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Darouet, you don't find it strange that out of the FIVE sources you listed, the number of these which actually use the word "Russia" somewhere in their text is precisely... NONE? You'd figure that if these sources were relevant to this article they would, you know, use the word "Russia" at least once or twice, since this article is titled "2016 United States election interference by Russia".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The studies are just self-published drafts. Brief mentions on several websites... So what? Nothing can elevate them to considered, informed, expert assessments. UNDUE and off-topic by academics outside their areas of expertise.  Cheese Doodles.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are these just "websites" or news organizations? And is the Stanford study "mentioned" or is it the subject of the articles? -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This "study" hasn't even been published. Aim higher!  SPECIFICO  talk  04:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Stanford research is relevant to alleged Russian interference in the US elections, and it's been picked up by a number of reliable sources. If is the only person who objects to the inclusion of Stanford research, then I'd say it looks like there's consensus to restore the material to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there's no such consensus. In fact, because this one is such a blatant piece of original research which directly violates a core Wikipedia policy, this would be one of these instances were global consensus (NPOV is a pillar) would even trump local consensus. Which you ain't got anyway. But just saying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus. SPECIFICO  talk  04:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * UNDUE. COATRACK. SPS. SYNTH.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"The Stanford research is relevant to alleged Russian interference" - oh for french fry's sake, how many times does this have to be said? IF it really is "relevant to alleged Russian interference" then it should be trivially easy to find a god danged secondary reliable source which discusses the falanouc study AND Russian interference together, no? The fact that several editors are so busy jumping up and down claiming the relevance of the study rather than actually providing such a source very strongly suggests that it foining isn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * VM & SPC is probably right: in I can't find a single source discussing it within the context of the present topic (used a couple google searches). So unfortunately it would be OR/COAT to include it.   Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right. Since the sources don't mention Russian interference/hacking, we should leave this Stanford study out of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: One of the five sources you mentioned (IBT) isn't about the Stanford U/NYU study, it's about a Stanford computer science major who says he developed a fake news detector that correctly identifies fake news sites 99.7% of the time.  My best guess as to the connection to the study: The search terms "Stanford" and "fake news"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your notes - I'm quite busy until late tomorrow - sorry, I apologize about that :/ quite right. Because I saw that both studies were hitting the news out of Stanford at about the same time, I assumed they were the same project. However Karan Singhal (IBT story) has no relationship to the Gentzkow lab or study. -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The study belongs in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops, I'm on the wrong the article. I thought this might have been the 'Fake News' article, where the study would have been relevant. Agree with Volunteer Marek above that RS have to demonstrate its relevance to the Russian interference. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I struck your above edit, since you indicated it wasn't relevant. Revert if I overstepped. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, this material does not belong in this article. No real connection between Russian influence and fake news has been established in the primary and secondary sources. I disagree with Darouet's argument that the material falls withing the scope of this article's subject. Obviously, the phenomenon of fake news and its impact on the election is a broader subject than Russia's use of fake news to influence the election. In fact, fake news seems to be a minor stratagem employed by Russia in their overall efforts. As others have already pointed out, including this material would violate our policy on original research.- MrX 20:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX. This is synth-y. If the study mentioned Russia or foreign interference, then there would be a much stronger case. But it does not. And, and MrX points out, fake news was a relatively small part of the interference (compared to hacking). Neutralitytalk 23:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Massive removal of RS reverted wholesale - feel free to tweak content or discuss adjustments, however
There was a massive, unilateral and undiscussed removal of RS, including The Nation, Stanford University and the Christian Science Monitor  by User:Volunteer Marek. All of the content removed is referenced in the Move proposal, to support the Move; this is an apparent attempt to game the Move proposal in violation of Discretionary Sanctions. I have reverted in wholesale. Feel free to tweak any of this (or remove it after a discussion), but please don't just come through with a lawnmower and start cutting it down to game !votes. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Update Steve Quinn has now also joined the blanking, declaring that the process for "challenging" content is by simply removing it and that - once removed - it can't be restored without a discussion. I thought we "challenged" content by coming to the Talk page and discussing it? BlueSalix (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the template - removed material is challenged material ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. BlueSalix (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. So let's discuss this and see what we can come up with. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I rescind my offer. This is out of control. See this and see below. ---Steve Quinn (talk)
 * What "offer"? And what, exactly, is "out of control?" The material was UNDUE and I've challenged it as per the process you described. Further, by byte size, it was a smaller volume of material than Malek "challenged". We can now discuss it over the coming weeks and arrive at a consensus as to whether or not it should be restored. BlueSalix (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm speechless --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, well if you regain your voice I would very much welcome you to join the discussions I've opened below. The more diversity of input the better. BlueSalix (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I hope you are not removing content because another editor removed content which you restored and which was again removed by another editor. Because you seem to indicate here that there is a direct relationship between this and this, and then this. Regardless of the merits of the individual removals, this is just incredibly disruptive. Marek warned you about DS, so I don't have to add anything to that--and this comment is not only incorrect but also very uncollegial. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the case at all, Drmies. I strongly felt the content in question was UNDUE but had delayed challenging it simply due to prioritization of time and my misunderstanding that the process for challenging content involved opening a discussion and arriving at a consensus. When I was, subsequently, informed that the process of challenging content involved deleting it, and then opening a discussion as to whether it should be restored, it became somewhat easier to manage from a bookkeeping process. For the record, there's other content I'm planning on challenging in the next few hours, I'm just going through a process of double-checking the sources first to ensure that I don't wrongly challenge appropriate material. BlueSalix (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I was wondering how you felt about the collegiality of this post. Thanks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh here we go. You keep repeating the same false thing (that the Stanford study is related to the topic of this article) over and over and repeatedly fail to address the substance of the issue - where is the source which links the Stanford study to the topic of this article? And since you can't produce such a source you eventually resort to complaining about the "tone" of others' comment.s This is classic WP:CPUSH - obstruct and frustrate the hell out of other editors, then when they use strong language (which by the way discusses content) try to get them in trouble on some technicality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've made exactly one comment on the Stanford fake news study. But that's not what I'm asking about here. Since they mentioned collegiality, I'm asking what they think about the collegiality you've shown in comments like this one, or indeed your comment directly above. This isn't "some technicality" - it's a basic question of whether editors behave civilly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, Thucydides this comment of yours was the very model of modern non-collegiality, seeing as like how it insinuated your passive denial of Marek's already stated challenge to this nonsense. Non-collegiality par excellence. SPECIFICO  talk  20:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Challenge of U.S. Senate section
I have challenged - by process of removal - the last five paragraphs of the section titled "U.S. Senate". I challenge it as WP:UNDUE. Per ArbCom sanctions, challenged content is not to be restored without consensus. I am opening a process for discussion here. Should the challenged section be restored in whole, should it continue to omitted, or is there an alternate opinion? BlueSalix (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Omitted as OP BlueSalix (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored by me as a POINTy removal. Discussion here in search of consensus can continue. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Restore as obvious gamesmanship with no rationale advanced beyond a wikilink. You have to actually explain how its given undue weight, and why the actual weight should be "zero", as you have set it to. Frankly, I think we should be looking into a topic ban from American politics after repeated POINTy actions. ~ Rob 13 Talk 08:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * '''WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * RestoreFailing to see why this is undue, given that the US senate is one of the two legislative branches of the US government their opinion of an election and how they react is highly relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The section as written is undue because instead of summarizing who said what it uses the proof by assertion fallacious argument. In other words by repeating numerous believers we are trying to convince readers of the truth of their belief.  In fact, John McCain fell for false intelligence about Iraq while Graham brought a false prosecution on impeachment against President Clinton.  None of these people have good records for reliability.  TFD (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Counter-challenge of Malek's Removal of Sourced Material
Should Malek's massive removal of content source to The Nation, Christian Science Monitor, The Hill, Stanford University, etc. be sustained or overturned? This discussion pertains to all mass deletions taken by Malek during the period 07:38, 5 February 2017‎ to 08:02, 5 February 2017. They cannot be individually listed here due to the massive volume and scope of the deletions that occurred, but can be referenced in the edit history.‎ BlueSalix (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Revert and Restore - All material is topical and sourced to RS. BlueSalix (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Immediately Restore the sources removed by VM. Immediately Restore the massive section of the article removed by BlueSalix, without even a rationale except for "I'm challenging this, per DS you can't restore it" - the only thing missing from the edit summary was "nyah, nyah." This what was clearly a WP:POINTY move here - and as User:Drmies pointed out above, it is extremely disruptive. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to several discussions at my talk page where more experienced admins explained and interpreted the DS process: (link 1, link 2): Removal of longstanding material actually counts as an "edit", which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus. "the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged"". It was further explained that the purpose of the DS is to promote article stability. In that interest, someone actually can't just delete a bunch of material and then dare anyone to restore it. Based on that understanding I am going to revert both of these recent large deletions, which appear to have been POINTy rather than intended to improve the article. If an admin thinks that was a violation on my part, you know where to find me. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * LMAO, of course. I kinda figured it was a matter of minutes before some arcana was discovered in the bowels of a Talk page to stop the challenge of this "long standing" (58 day old) content. Hilarious. BlueSalix (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, actually I said it was UNDUE in three separate places, including the edit summary.
 * Exact wording of my edit summary : "I hereby challenge this content as UNDUE. Arbcom sanctions in effect - see template - challenged (reverted) content is not to be restored unless there is consensus for doing so. Please discuss on talk page."
 * The edit summary MelanieN attributed to me : "I'm challenging this, per DS you can't restore it"
 * Not cool, MelanieN. DS applies to admins, too (I mean, in theory; I know that's not true in reality, obvs). BlueSalix (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. I am bound by the DS just like everyone else. According to the interpretations I have been given, it is not a violation to revert the deletion of longstanding material. In effect, you made an edit (the large deletion) and I challenged it by reverting it. Would you care to justify your massive removal, explain why you did it, and try to obtain consensus? --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per - I am going to try to revert my last edit - which will restore material removed by Volunteer Marek. This makes sense to me under the circumstances.---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you were bound by DS you would have just been blocked for the outrageous act of attributing fake quotes to me and claiming I didn't provide a rationale, when I explained in three places it was due to WP:UNDUE.
 * Exact wording of my edit summary : "I hereby challenge this content as UNDUE. Arbcom sanctions in effect - see template - challenged (reverted) content is not to be restored unless there is consensus for doing so. Please discuss on talk page."
 * The edit summary MelanieN attributed to me : "I'm challenging this, per DS you can't restore it"
 * But you're still posting. Must be great to have a Get Outta Jail Free card. What a joke this article has become. BlueSalix (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. You've made a continuous series of personal attacks over the past few days, of which this is the latest. Stop. Neutralitytalk 22:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek's edits clearly improved the article. --Tataral (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How? Beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT? BlueSalix (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, every single one of my edits provided a detailed rationale - for example, you're adding text based on sources which don't even mention the word "Russia"!!!! Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The material should be restored Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Beyond WP:IJUSTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK everybody - the problem has been solved, . I recommend discussion take place before large blocks of text are removed. Just a recommendation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. Can people read? Both deletions and additions are edits. You cannot "challenge" longstanding text by removing it. You can challenge the removal hover. Similarly for additions. This was pure insanity. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Following this this deletion by, it appears the article is more or less where it was prior to all the back-and-forth. Let's have a civil conversation about the Stanford and NYU material. My impression is that if this article will maintain that the Russian government is accused of spreading fake news to influence the election, the Stanford study on fake news and its effect on the election is within the WP:SCOPE of this article. -Darouet (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the Greenwald and Gessen stuff is still in the lede. MelanieN restored it because she thought it was "longstanding material". This is incorrect as far as the lede is concerned, though the POINTy nature of BlueSalix's edit can easily confuse.
 * We were arguing about whether Greenwald belongs in the ARTICLE at all, and how to present Gessen, both in the "Experts section". There were/are several editors who think Greenwald shouldn't be here in the first place. What BlueSalix (best I can tell it was him) did, was to try and pour gasoline on the fire by also adding the disputed material to THE LEDE.
 * As far as Stanford study goes, if you can find a source which actually discusses it and Russian interference then we can talk. The sources given for it don't even mention Russia! (And recall that good bit of "fake news" that the Stanford study concerns itself with was opportunistic, financially motivated clickbait by kids out of Macedonia or Brooklyn or whatever, which had nothing to do with Russia).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Followup: After I reverted all of VM's deletions as "removal of longstanding material," I have had it called to my attention that two of the deletions were actually not of "longstanding material". They were of recent changes made in the past couple of days to the final paragraph(s) of the lede, and additional material added to the "Expert assessment" section. In that case the deletion of those two changes should stand - SPECIFICO has redeleted them since I restored them by mistake - and we should discuss whether to restore that material or endorse the deletion. I suggest two separate sections, one for the lede and one for the expert section. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Weak Restore I am not seeing why counter claims in RS cannot be included, can some one offer a reason why this should not be?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Experts and Public Opinion
Let me be blunt: The Expert Opinion is laughable. Period. Just read it... those aren't experts of any sort. A military historian who says "[governments lie all the time]"? Not one of the so-called experts has any qualifications pertinent to the issue. A cyber security 'expert' who says there should be an investigation? A 'journalist' who says the "[results are inconclusive"}"? Grenwald attacking the Washington Post for using anonymous sources?  There is nothing of value in that entire section.  Should be wiped.

Also, why is there a public opinion section? What is the relevance? If 36% of the population thinks Russian interfered with our elections... how is that relevant to anything? Last time I checked we don't vote on whether or not Russia interfered in the elections. 2601:47:4180:7953:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the section should be titled "Expert assessment" because the notability of opinions appears to be the inclusive factor. Maybe something like "Other commentary" would suffice. As for the "Public opinion" section, the purpose isn't to prove whether or not Russia interfered, but rather to inform the reader of how the general American public accepted news of Russian interference. FallingGravity 01:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right. I changed it to something neutral a while back, but the neutral wording was reverted. It's media coverage or something like that.  Of course, most of it should be deleted -- WP:UNDUE -- but these are the click-hungry pundits in the vapid and fake internet news era.  This stuff is mostly non-experts saying they would be experts if only all the sensitive classified information were dumped on the public.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with you both re: renaming, if something can be proposed all are happy with. However I disagree with SPECIFICO that commentary is motivated by various frivolous and fundamentally dishonest motives. First, this would be highly difficult to prove. Second, there are many reasons to anticipate that commentary on all sides would have genuine concerns. For those who believe hacking likely or certainly was directed by the Russian government, the indirect direction of policy by a foreign government - perceived to be hostile - would be cause enough for concern, beyond desire for clicks. For those who are skeptical of such claims, the influence upon policy leading to confrontation with a nuclear-armed superpower would similarly be cause for concern. As to whose voices matter, that is something we all hash out here. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)