Talk:Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections/Archive 1

Structure
I'd recommend a structure featuring the following: 1. Background 2. Disinformation 3. Cyberattacks and hacking. Looking back at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, it just looks like they went with a topical, event-focused structure instead. --Pilaz (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a reasonable structure, I think. In working on the current version, I vaguely had a scheme in mind that went as follows: 1. Intelligence community; 2. tech industry and social media; 3. politicians; 4. generalizations to other countries that have mostly been discussed in the primary context of Russian interference. I figured that the article would read in a more sober way if Coats, Wray and Mueller appeared first, followed by Burt. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It might need to also be split up by country too, though, as there is involvement of Russia, Iran, and China. That gets into also retitling the page, after the AfD closes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this structure, although evidence of interference not being included is exactly why I started the AFD. If the decision is keep, however, based on the current article, a controversial move discussion as proposed on the AFD page will be needed. Finally, looking at the Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections, that is nothing more than a timeline, and particularly with the fact that the 2016 article and timeline were begun a month after the election. Theoallen1 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump would veto a bill requiring federal election campaigns to report "illicit offers" of campaign assistance from foreign governments and their agents
X1\ (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/white-house-threatens-to-veto-bill-requiring-campaigns-to-report-illicit-offers-from-foreign-governments
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-democrats-pass-bill-to-prevent-foreign-interference-in-elections-trump-veto-today-2019-10-24
 * https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/467130-senate-gop-blocks-three-election-security-bills-for-second-day

add more warnings?

 * "DHS warns of Russian interference plans in 2020 elections, as Washington focuses on Ukraine" Martin de Bourmont and Jana WinterContributors,Yahoo News; October 24, 2019. X1\ (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks worth adding. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Biased and selective
This is not a neutral article. It is cherry-picking from a diverse range of issues in order to claim there is foreign interference in an election that hasn't even happened. While accusing perfidious foreigners of interfering (including by subversive tweets), it is itself trying to influence the 2020 election. It also self-righteously ignores the fact that the USA has been interfering in foreign elections since 1945. In fact, this article is an example of the thing it claims to oppose.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland, you forgot to sign. What content specifically are you disputing? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All the content is supported by reliable sources, which are represented neutrally. The 2020 elections have not yet occurred, but preparations for them are well underway, and threats against their integrity are already a matter of serious concern. What the US has done to other countries is not the topic of this article and is documented elsewhere, for example at United States involvement in regime change. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * U.S. interference in outside elections belongs on a different page. This is the page for foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. elections, a notable topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is noteworthy that in the AfD discussion for this article, two editors accused other editors of being Russian/Moldavian agents without any evidence. There seems a lot of paranoia in this.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, no, it's not really noteworthy, since it was tangential to the solid consensus in favor of keeping the article; nor was it evidence-free paranoia, since the vandal IP in question originated in Moldova. (That was also around the time when we had to clean up after what looked like a low-rent troll farm out of Murmansk that had been hired to manage the media presence of a fly-by-night YouTube channel for kids' programming. That was ... odd.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's interesting information anyway. I've been looking for evidence for a while.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)