Talk:Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election

"Additional views"
Is it not a bit disingenuous to quote the Democratic members conclusion as the conclusion of the report? It's probably the most accurate, but even so... Goaded (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We could cover the "Additional views" sections in the report better, but we need secondary sources to established what due weight they have. Such sources do exist, so a section should be created for the topic. -- Valjean (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The views that have gained notice are those at the end of Volume 5:


 * ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS RISCH, RUBIO, BLUNT, COTTON, CORNYN, AND SASSE
 * ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS HEINRICH, FEINSTEIN, WYDEN, HARRIS, AND BENNET.
 * ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR WYDEN

Some RS that comment on the "Additional views":

Valjean (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Five takeaways from final Senate Intel Russia report
 * Bipartisan Senate report details Trump campaign contacts with Russia in 2016, adding to Mueller findings
 * How a Senate panel went beyond Mueller in documenting Trump campaign contacts with Russia
 * Republican-led Senate panel: Russia interfered in 2016 election to aid Trump, campaign associates had regular contact with Russians
 * Republican Senators Misrepresent Their Own Russia Report
 * A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?
 * Marco Rubio’s curious summary of his committee’s Russia report
 * The Senate just dropped a massive Russia bombshell (and most people missed it)
 * On Russia's Team Trump connections, Rubio draws a curious conclusion. Marco Rubio declared with pride and "without any hesitation" that the Trump campaign didn't "collude" with Russia. Did he not read his own report?
 * The Senate Intelligence Committee’s new Russia report, explained
 * Senate Intelligence Committee releases final report on 2016 Russian interference
 * Trump Denies Collusion After Senate Report Finds Evidence Of Russia's 2016 Election Interference
 * Bipartisan Senate Report Offers Strongest Evidence Yet that Trump Lied to Mueller
 * This damning Senate intelligence report deserves your attention
 * Manafort Ties to Russia Posed ‘Grave Threat,’ Senate Concludes
 * Valjean, our first step should be to stop quoting the Democratic members' conclusion as the conclusion of the report. The first blockquote in this Wikipedia article is currently misattributed to the entire committee.  Goaded already pointed this out at the beginning of this talk page section, on 10 February 2021.  Other editors have tried to correct this error as well.  For example, User Factbook1 corrected the error on 16 Dec 2021 but was then reverted without explanation by User Ifnord.  I suggest we stop giving the world false information, pronto.  I have no objection to starting a section about minority views, and we could move this article's first blockquote to that section.  But until such a section is started, the blockquote should be removed.  Thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I had totally forgotten this. I have now restored an older version with the addition of a wikilink and proper attribution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In my experience, it’s unusual for the lead of an article to include a blockquote. And to include a blockquote only from the minority is not only undue weight, but people who skim to the blockquote will assume that it summarizes the report which this one definitely does not.  As I said above, “the blockquote should be removed.”  Or it can be moved out of the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ec... I understand your concern that this was featured in the lead, but secondary RS did focus on this factual summary of the red thread in the report. They too noticed that this was a pervasive thread throughout the report that the GOP conveniently ignored, but which the Democratic minority mentioned. I have moved it out of the lead into its own section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a diff of your consecutive edits including today’s edits. You deleted this quotation from the lead: “The committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election.”  I think we all know what is happening here.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the edit summary for the edit in question. AGF. I'll try to restore it in its own section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now they are both near the end. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This was off my radar. I just noticed that your tban was lifted. Congratulations! Now just be careful, such as always AGF. You see how easy this fix worked out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Your personal POV is very clear. As you said today, you believe that Trump “was a counterintelligence threat to the nation”. Please be careful to keep your personal POV out of Wikipedia articles. Anyway, I appreciate your cooperation today. Cheers!&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely keep it out of articles, except for this vital fact. I wouldn't know what to believe if RS didn't tell me, so my personal POV are usually aligned with what RS say. In that sense, my personal POV is aligned with what's in articles, but there it's RS that are the source, not me. I actually mirror them! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTFORUM. I would be violating that rule if I respond further to your spiel.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Note: the comment I was responding to has been amended.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)