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

Bogatin story
Earlier today you added the story of Russian mobster Bogatin who bought condos from Trump in 1984. I removed it saying this was not related to the subject matter of this article, namely the 2016 Russian interference. You reverted me stating "Follow the money." I suppose you are referring to Craig Unger's article "Trump’s Russian Laundromat" that is cited. Nowhere in this paper can I see any allegation that Bogatin's (mis)deeds are in any way related to the 2016 interference operation. The article merely states that Trump's dealings with Russia are being scrutinized. Therefore I will remove these entries again. If you still disagree, the onus is on you to get consensus for insertion. — JFG talk 01:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about done by User:Tanath on 15:07, 28 October 2018 ?  X1\ (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, you know full well (assuming you are the same person that has been using this username during the life of this article), as this has been discussed multiple times, the scope is "includes major events related to investigations into suspected inappropriate links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials.major events". The Trump campaign repeatedly, emphatically, denied any connects with Russia; when in fact there has been decades of extensive connections, which included many long money trails.  The event which you deleted, even though it had multiple RSs, is the first I know of Trump's direct connection to Russia Russians (not American Russians).  This event not only profited Trump, it was the start of money-laundering of Russian money through Trump properties.  Read the long-established RSs in these articles, and if you are too lazy to do that you are only here to disrupt this article.


 * X1\ (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, , , Top article editors care to comment also?  X1\ (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In Google Books, a significant number of pages of Trump / Russia: A Definitive History are free to view online, including on Bogatin. Bogatin is on pages 6-13, 16, 18-21, 63, and 164 per the book's Index.  X1\ (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have add the interstitial dates in for context (from the existing article).  X1\ (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I consolidated into "Bogatin story", renamed it to "".  X1\ (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is relevant to the allegations that Trump has been subject to surveillance since his first visit, and that he has engaged in actions which make him vulnerable to blackmail. The current situation has roots all the way back, and these RS deal with that. These connections are within the scope of the Trump-Russia Mueller investigation, and everything connected to it is within the scope of this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove We do not push wacko conspiracy theories here. PackMecEng (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove Not related to the article's title. Neither is much of the other content.Phmoreno (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please retract your personal attack (if you are too lazy to do that you are only here to disrupt this article), or I'll escalate the matter. I have read the sources and made a reasoned case for removing this information. By restoring it once again, you are violating the spirit of WP:BRD (Tanath and you made Bold edits, I Reverted them with a rationale, and now we Discuss -- note that you re-inserted the content twice in the meantime, that is called edit-warring). This thread is here to discuss the relevance of this content, and it must stay out of the article until consensus is achieved. I urge you to self-revert your latest re-instatement. — JFG talk 07:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: BullRangifer gave good reasons. Shows that Trump's Russia connections go back to 1984, despite denials. A large amount of the picture is circumstantial evidence, so even if it doesn't appear relevant, it is. In '84 he started laundering money for the Russian mob. In late '86 he visited Moscow, and early next year spent about $210,000 in today's money (2018) attacking NATO. Early next year he revealed presidential aspirations. It is relevant to know how far back is Russia ties go, and to who and how they got started. The nature of the connections help explain why he doesn't want them known. It's important context. Tanath (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody is contesting facts about Trump's sale of condos to questionable characters in 1984. The question at hand is: how is that related to the subject of this article, viz. Russian interference in 2016 elections. Connecting the dots is merely speculation, which is not warranted here. — JFG talk 09:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * you are mischaracterizing Russian (mafia) sources of money for an often cash-strapped Trump. Beholden to the Russians (not just "questionable characters").  The "dots" are connected by RSs.  I don't see you questioning the RSs, even though you say you "have read the sources".  The reference book I added, even at first glance, clearly connects Trump to the Russians (first during Soviet times) via money through their mafia, then after involvement in money-laundering, Trump is invited to the USSR (visiting Moscow and Putin's stomping-ground Leningrad (currently called Saint Petersburg)), and he gets a paid vacation there.  It is worth noting Russia is considered a mafia state ruling a legacy-totalitarian populous. Oh, and as you yourself pointed-out, I did not make a personal attack; see if, as in a conditional (computer programming), so there is nothing to retract.  X1\ (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, so much to unpack there. Essentially sources have established that some mafia-related Russian guy laundered his money in U.S. real estate (happens every day, and he got caught), he happened to buy some property from Trump (didn't he buy many properties from many people?), and Trump explored real estate possibilities in Moscow in 1987 (nothing came of the trip, and that was unrelated to Bogatin), so therefore we must include this story in an article about Russian interference in the 2016 elections? Elections which nobody in the last century could have foreseen (even though "B-series actor" Reagan was president in the 1980s). "But the KGB probably collected intelligence on him and his wife!" Well, the KGB's job was to spy on everybody, what's so special about Trump? Sorry, too much speculation by breathless conspiracy theorists. It sure sells books, but it has no place in Wikipedia. — JFG talk 07:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep X1\ (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of RSs connecting the dots to make this relevant per BullRangifer's comments. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The Result of this discussion was Kept. I suggest it be hatted to keep the discussion topics clean and organized. , , ,  any Top article editors care to comment otherwise?  X1\ (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and close discussion Websurfer2 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This "closing" by two involved editors is not appropriate. There is no clear consensus in this discussion. I count four editors who want to include the contents, and three who don't. There are good arguments on both sides. We should request closure by an uninvolved editor, or call an RfC. — JFG talk 09:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Flippant "drive-by" comments unsupported by RS are not constructive by Phmoreno and PackMecEng, and should not be considered for consensus. "I don't like it" is not BRD, nor is trolling.  That (again) leaves you. , , , and I support.  There aren't "both sides", there is what improves the article.  Pretending this is an active discussion that ended after 7 November 2018, is another form of disruptive editing.   X1\ (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging the people that opposed like you pinged those that support. WP:CANVAS much? But anyhow I stand by my comment as all that was required. It is a conspiracy theory and not a good one at that. It has no place here. PackMecEng (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have pinged you, if you were actively constructive at this article. 21:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just keep it in mind in the future. If you are in a discussion it looks really bad what you just did. PackMecEng (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's relevant content from RS. The conspiracy theory is the one which says that Trump was being honest when he said he had no Russian connections. That is Trump's conspiracy theory, and we don't believe it. It's not backed by RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I support Websurfer2's 3 January 2019 action to Keep and close discussion, as this tread effectively ended 7 November 2018. I'd suggest either Archiving to clean-up or re-hat as Websurfer2 did with "Consensus: Keep". X1\ (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you are involved, and should not be repeating a call for closing a thread that you previously hatted improperly. Calling for advice from admins well-versed in DS/AP articles. — JFG talk 23:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Confirming that it would be improper for User:X1\ or User:Websurfer2 to close discussions they're involved in that don't have clear consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there was a consensus among serious commenters. The two objections were of the type normally not counted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * under ideal circumstances, I would wholeheartedly support and defend what you have said. This has not been the ideal here.  It will take time digging into the History to see what I am saying.  X1\ (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How can you tell that opposing editors are not "serious commenters"? Because their opinion differs from yours? Please address content, not editors. The objections made are valid, essentially that these events from 1984–87 are not related to 2016 election interference, which is the subject of this article. No amount of stretching the game of speculation about Bogatin or the KGB will change this simple fact. You are very knowledgeable about the Trump–Russia stories: have you seen any source that connects Bogatin to election interference? — JFG talk 06:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * as I assume you know focusing on "Bogatin" is a red herring, a deflection, as the connection is between Trump and "Russia". It is about 73 days between 6.Nov'18 and 18.Jan'19 and is quite a coincidence that this apparently is a topic again as the BuzzFeed News/Trump Tower Moscow/Trump subornation of perjury with Cohen controversy has come-to-the-fore.
 * Books, periodical, and websites are our RSs. If Trump or Russia wants to refute those RSs, or sue for liable, we will include those refs here too.
 * What are "DS/AP articles"? X1\ (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles placed under WP:Discretionary sanctions, in the American Politics subject matter. — JFG talk 11:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, this content about 1984 certainly belongs to the page - agree with BullRangifer and others. Why? Because it is related to the 2016 elections - according to the cited sources. They make such connection. My very best wishes (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Relevant individuals and organizations - include Bernie Sanders?
I WP:BOLDly added Bernie Sanders to the list of relevant individuals and organizations at the top of the article. User:JFG reverted my addition and I'd like to discuss the proposed addition here.

My main point is that, while I'm not suggesting that Bernie Sanders himself was directly involved in any interference activities, it has been reported that his campaign was impacted and targeted by some of these interference activities.

See "IRA instructs workers to 'use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).'" and "WikiLeaks publishes 20,000 emails from seven key DNC officials. The emails show them disparaging Bernie Sanders and favoring Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential primaries." from 2016 and "Politico reports that approximately $150,000 worth of Russian-funded Facebook advertisements promoted candidates Trump, Sanders and Stein." from 2017.

It isn't quite the same level of interference as what happened with Hillary (yes, this is a significant understatement), but she is also listed as a relevant individual, as is Stein. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 20:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems relevant, as Russians were attempting to divide and rule. Split Dem vote, and support Trump.  X1\ (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, there are actual citations mentioning Russian support for him, so let's go. — JFG talk 07:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed Bernie's Committee positions, unless they are relevant to Russian interference/investigations. X1\ (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I was trying to follow the existing convention when I first added them, but I see now that they don't really fit into the section. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 01:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * who knows, maybe in the future. Thank you for discussing items first. X1\ (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Timeline
The following sentence is listed on the timeline, and should be deleted: “Seth Abramson estimated more than 400 people could be listed here.Theoallen1 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an attributed RS. Gives context to the "Relevant individuals and organizations" list.  X1\ (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the section sorely needs some more context. Right now it isn't very clear what being on this list means (see the above section for one example). I think this sentence should be kept and I'd love to see a (small) expansion of the paragraph beyond this single sentence. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the purpose of the list is mostly to define "Relevant individuals and organizations" so they aren't redefined repeatedly, and so just people's last names can be used (if just a last name is clear). This is for simplicity, to avoid build-up of junk.  Having some clear definitive criterion for ex/inclusion in the List is not possible yet, so some items are debatable.  Usually it is if their names are used often or are very prominent and difficult to describe at the date item.  X1\ (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could the solution be as simple as articulating this in the article? Something like "This is a list of individuals and organizations that have been involved in the events related to both the election interference that Russia conducted against the U.S. 2016 elections and the investigations into suspected inappropriate links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials." And then the Seth Abramson sentence. This would make it clearer and at least give us a starting point to further discussion for changes to this section. I'm happy to hear other ideas/options. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 01:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Relevant individuals and organizations - minor expansion?
I made the change, but I'm very much open to revisions. Also, should this section expand slightly with actual explanations of how each person is related to the ongoing activities? It might help to give the section a little more importance and gravity so the names make more sense in the specific context of timeline entries. I'm thinking something along the lines of a 1-2 sentence (ideally with references) summarization of the main actions/impacts causing the person to connect to the timeline. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 07:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary point - piped links
(N.B. X1\ moved this discussion here from X1\'s Talk page.)

Hi [X1\]. I didn't see a need to bring this up at the relevant talk page since my question isn't about the content in that article per se, but rather the "style for piped [links]" you cited in this edit summary: style for piped is as wikipedia article title, so CAP Ts. I see you made similar changes referencing this edit summary in newer revisions of the article as well. Can you please point out where this style is explained? Thanks. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 07:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * it is the style throughout the pages and what I have seen on other pages I have edited. Off-hand I don't remember where is it explained (MOS?, but of course there is BEBOLD).  Why don't you want to do it that way?  It makes it easier to see the pipes when look at the code.  X1\ (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that you were citing something specific in the MoS, but if there is not an actual policy or guideline that you can specifically recall I guess it comes down to personal preference and subsequently taking any dispute to the talk page to be hashed out.This is exceedingly trivial so I'm not going to make a fuss, but if there is an actual reference to this in the MoS I wanted to make sure I knew about it going forward. (I checked MOS:PIPE and I didn't see anything referencing this particular case, though there are some very good guidelines there in general. WP:NOPIPE is closer, but still nothing specific.) Furthermore, if there is no reference you are misrepresenting your personal preference as an accepted style guideline, which probably isn't the best idea. I honestly don't know one way or the other (nor am I suggesting you are doing something wrong) so that is why I asked. If it is just a preference though, I try to only make those kinds of changes as part of a more substantive edit and not just to correct  something so minor.As for my preference of not capitalizing links, having lowercase piped links (where appropriate grammatically) IMHO is easier to read when editing/reviewing the code and there are cases where it makes it functionally easier to edit as well. For example, when using the WP:PIPETRICK   (note the pipe and empty label), it will automatically expand to  (baseball) when saving the page, which is shorter to type than the fully expanded code. If that link were in the middle of a sentence it would need to be lower case and if you had kept the initial capital (per your preference) and typed   it would expand to  (Baseball) instead and require either a subsequent edit to change   to   or fully typing out   in the first place. It is a minor edge case, but this convienience and keeping consistency with it for other piped links is a reason why I prefer having the initial letter lower case (when it makes gramattical sense) for piped links. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 00:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Centralized talk page
Per WP:TALKCENT, I think it makes sense to centralize the talk pages for Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017), Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018), and Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) onto this page. The discussions among these pages are all interrelatted and many parts are transcluded to all four pages. See Talk:List of aircraft for an example of a group of articles where this has worked well. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 03:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support that change. I can merge the threads from other pages to here if there's consensus. — JFG talk 07:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * is there a specific reason you want that? It is already messy here, and an editor revived a dead thread after 73 days (for example), so Archiving has been disrupted.  The goal would be simplicity and clarity over centralization.  X1\ (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * you might want to see the related Timelines' Talk pages again. There are new items, and edits.  X1\ (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that there are new items and edits! ;) I'm not suggesting that there isn't any activity on these pages currently. I understand that there is going to be more activity on this talk page as a result of this centralization, but at least it will all be in one place and be easier to follow (vs. the current situation of trying to track it across multiple pages).
 * The page was originally split because of article size concerns; it was literally starting to break the site. Thankfully, on the talk page we don't have that restriction since old threads can be archived.
 * The beginning and end sections of each of these pages are all identical (ish) and contain mostly the same content that is transcluded from this main (and original) page. Any discussion for changes to these sections will apply to all the pages and by centralizing the talk pages it would all happen in one place. Furthermore, this list ought to be consistent across all the pages and the best way to achieve this is by combining the talk pages.
 * As for the reviving of a dead thread, there isn't much that you can do about a rogue editor not following accepted convention for discussions on talk pages. Archived discussions should be kept archived and that would apply to these talk pages regardless of centralization. I'm sure there are other pros that I'm forgetting as well as cons that I'm overlooking, but I think the pros clearly outweigh the cons here. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 02:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * relative to the List of aircraft article which are many and simple, these Timeline articles are few and complex. This article was spun-off (23 May 2017) from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (created 10 December 2016).  I was part of pushing to split this article.  See Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018), as there is a high proportion of disruptive trolls on these article, for a long time; not just "rogue editors".  See  with its drive-by trolls.  The Internet Research Agency and its fellow travelers are not "rogue editors".  My concern is centralization could be another opportunity for disruption.  I would greatly welcome if you are able to spend time helping defend these Timelines against trolls.  I don't want you to push some change of nominal help and leave a mess.  X1\ (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm either not sure I fully understand your concern, or I think it is at least as likely for centralizing to be a net positive with regard to dealing with disruption. I think having a centralized location where all issues related to this timeline as well as the 2017, 2018, and 2019 continuations of it would make it easier to discuss any disruption issues. Right now you have to check and update multiple talk pages if/when there are problems on each page. After centralizing the talk pages, issues raised here would be seen by everyone who has this 2016 page on their watchlist.As an examlple, look at the comparatively stable (not really) 2017 page. This page was created and mostly completed after the timeline was split in May 2018. It has fewer than 500 edits and currently very few talk page entries. 2018 has over 1000 edits with more talk page entries but not an overwhelming amount. 2019, while still early in the year, has over 250 and is on track to have more than 2018 fairly soon with a small number of talk page entries. Most of the talk page discussions happened here before the pages were split in 2018. It is easy for discussions to get lost on the other pages and if there are issues that keep coming up over and over again it will be easier to keep things straight and reliably point to older precedent if all the archives are in one place as well.How does having separate talk pages make it harder to cause disruption? It certainly makes it harder to deal with it. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 23:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * what would happen to the ongoing Talk pages (please look at all those Timeline Talk pages)?  I haven't been through this before.  X1\ (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:TALKCENT:
 * If consensus is gained, then:
 * Archive current discussions on all the talk pages to be centralized; see Help:Archiving a talk page
 * Check each talk page for subpages. These are usually archived discussions, but other subpages are sometimes created, such as drafts or reviews. See Subpages.
 * On the centralized talk page, list the redirected pages. is useful for this.
 * On the centralized talk page, list all of the archived talk pages. is useful for this.
 * Redirect each talk page to the desired talk page; see Redirect. It is recommended that an editnotice be created for the redirected talk pages; see Editnotice. is useful for this.
 * It is recommended that an editnotice be created for the centralized talk page. is useful for this.
 * Ensure that involved editors realize that they need to add the centralized talk page to their watchlist.
 * I would propose that (1) be skipped in lieu of moving all discussions on those pages here, and then archiving them appropriately from here once they are old enough. Subsequently, (2) and (4) would then be skipped because there are no subpages or archived discussions, which I think is a reason why it makes sense to do this sooner rather than later. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 00:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

,, , , , / , , ,  As top editors at these Timelines, do you have comments of this idea? X1\ (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I find 's argument very compelling. I agree that the large amount of content transcluded and wikilinked between the pages really makes them a single multi-part article, which was the intent when I split the pages and is reflected in the article naming convention we agreed upon. It occurred to me at the time of the split that it would be convenient to have a single Talk page. I share your concerns about trolls, etc., but I think it would be easier to only have to monitor a single Talk page. I vote yes. Websurfer2 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Websurfer2 has a vast history of of constructive contributions to this article, and I appreciate their input. X1\ (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok? I don't know what your point is. (Also, I was surprised to see my username on that list! I know I've made a handful of edits and additions, but apparently enough to be in the top 10 editors by content. Not that it means much of anything, per WP:OWN.) - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 02:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the status quo is fine. Nerd271 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on that? The activity on these pages has died down a bit but the content on each timeline page still has direct relevance to the others, especially so on this 2016 page. I agree that the status quo currently does work, obviously, but the proposal is intended to improve the status quo. Having a centralized talk page would be easier to keep related discussions together and more easily cite previous discussions if there are recurring issues. Right now this is the only talk page with an archive, but as soon as 2018 or 2019 gets long enough to warrant one it will require searching in multiple places to find a discussion. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 03:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary
This is starting to get a little long and stale, so I'm going to provide a very concise summary/tally of where folks stand:

Support !vote

 * (as proposer)
 * ("support")
 * ("very compelling"/"yes")

Status quo/oppose !vote

 * ("status quo is fine")

I don't think anyone else has given an opinion despite 's helpful pings above. Please feel free to change/update this list as I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I figured this would be a lot easier to read through for whenever this discussion closes. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 04:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

2013 John R. Bolton, Trump's National Security Advisor, video for admitted Russian agent Maria Butina's organization
The above was deleted here. X1\ (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I deleted this because it has nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 22:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Bolton did not support Trump during the election and didn't join the administration until 2018. In other words, he had no connection with the election. TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Continue with the discussion thread you previously started at . X1\ (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is no justification for this being a Trump smear article
Unless there is something that proves that Trump had involvement with Russia that was related to Russia interfering with the election, it doesn't belong in this article. The other case would be any investigation into such.Phmoreno (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Wikipedia works on verifiability, not proof. If there is content in the article that is not verifiable in reliable sources, or that more recent sources have refuted, then please specify them.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Phmoreno, I see you are continuing to be tendentious, maybe if you still own "Russian small cap stocks" wouldn't that create a conflict-of-interest in your editing? X1\ (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I especially love how the timeline begins in the 80`s.. How exactly did they orchestrate Trump beating at least 12 other Republican candidates to even appear Jawz101 (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

2000
what does this edit have to do with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * your question is very open-ended. How much have you read of this article (including its references) and the other timelines?  Did you read the lede?  This article and the continued timelines are not just dates of when cyber-techniques were/are applied.  For example, the book Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President would be a useful introduction.  Hettena's book is quite informative.  This topic is rather epic, and more far-reaching than one might first suspect.  Also, you might find using the Template:Diff helpful to avoid clutter.    X1\ (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * the lede states "This is a timeline of major events related to election interference that Russia conducted against the U.S. 2016 elections. It also includes major events related to investigations into suspected inappropriate links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials.[1] Those investigations continued in 2017, 2018, and 2019." A 2000 withdrawal from seeking the reform party nomination has nothing to with that. unless you actually explain how it is relevant to this page remove it. עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is relevant and belongs here, but I also agree that the relevance is not obvious and needs more contextual details. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you for jumping-in. I agree the relevance is not obvious and could use more contextual details, but what to add without speculation and tangents?  My attempt  was to be at bit ASTONISHME with an eye on streamlining, if possible.  My bold addition of the item below speaks to Trump's long presidential aspirations (along with his long involvement with Russia).  As has been pointed out in RSs and by others, Trump seemed to show these aspirations after Ivanka and Donald's trip to the СССР.
 * I reverted JFG's removal, as there was another two items (section below) tangled with this which I couldn't Undo separately (and JFG didn't come here to discuss either). X1\ (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the onus is on you to obtain consensus for inserting this line, and you should self-revert until such consensus is manifest. Can you exhibit a source that connects Trump's aborted 2000 campaign with Russian interference in 2016? Or with Russia in general? — JFG talk 00:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can read above, Websurfer2 agreed. What I perceive as your facetiousness is not helpful to the Discussion process, and can be interpreted as Incivility.
 * Since I appear to be be having lag issues, and as not to be misinterpreted, I am going to do some troubleshooting here. Then, I may continue if all goes well.  X1\ (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the revert. Now let's hear from other editors. So far, two people want to mention the 2000 campaign, and two do not. It would be helpful if the pro-2000 editors could exhibit a source making the connection with the 2016 Russian interference. — JFG talk 00:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * care to comment? I've must leave soon, and I have lag issues.  I'll jump back into the discussion when time permits.  X1\ (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * AmYisroelChai appears uninterested anymore, and has only made 6 edits on this article. Websurfer2 has already made their opinion clear.  I have stated just some of the reasons why this item is useful to the Readers of this article.  Your move  Given the context of this article, and its Talk, how is it not related?  Saying, in effect, "I don't like it" is not enough, nor is "I don't get it".  X1\ (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why "my move"? It's up to you to justify inclusion of this line. I have asked for a source making the connection between Trump's 2000 campaign and Russia's 2016 interference, do you have that at hand? — JFG talk 22:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This page could be a starting place, kept in context. It has been in the article for some time now, nothing new; and as you say you "have read the sources", so a reminder.  I'd be happy to add   to the item in discussion, for clarity in the article.   would that be enough "contextual detail" for you?  I am sure there are more refs, potentially already in the article, too.  I am hesitant to include more prose at this time.  The article is already getting heavy in size.  I would have done more sooner, but I have continued to be distracted by local issues here. X1\ (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a blanket entry a few sentences long about Trump's 2000 presidential run is appropriate. It shows that Trump is not the political novice that he pretends to be. In terms of size, the article is at 388,799 bytes with 596 citations. Based upon the 2016–2018 article split, there is still enough space for at least another 250,000 bytes and over 300 citations. Websurfer2 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From that page's (p.75) paragraph, there is: "After his withdrawal, Trump wrote in an op-ed that America wasn't ready for yet for a 'straight-talking business-man.'" but he could not rule out another bid for the presidency. and that he was then still Democrat-friendly, stumping for universal healthcare, wanting Oprah Winfrey for his V.P.. Personally, I feel losing to the Pat Buchanan campaign who gained support among white nationalists, with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's endorsement, is significant.  It shows Trump not only was not the political novice (for 2016), but over time adapted new tactics as he "needed more" to put him over the top.  Also, thank you for the article size update. X1\ (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * . Maybe discuss adding details later, kept bland for now.   I'm considering un-hatting these "Consensus: Keep"s after these are Archived, to make them easier to page search.  X1\ (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the new version:
 * This is the new version:


 * X1\ (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to Seth Hettena's book. Could you kindly quote what he says on page 75 that establishes a connection between Russia and Trump's 2000 presidential bid? — JFG talk 09:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * so we are not to trust what you say, since you stated I have read the sources and made a reasoned case for removing this information.. X1\ (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Am I assuming correctly that you didn't read Seth Abramson's Proof of Collusion: How Trump Betrayed America either (as with Seth Hettena's Trump / Russia: A Definitive History); since you altered the content of the the summary while simultaneously asking "Need exact quote" (ES) ?  Altering content here without following the source is another example of disruptive behavior, or even vandalism. X1\ (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Am I assuming correctly that you didn't read Seth Abramson's Proof of Collusion: How Trump Betrayed America either (as with Seth Hettena's Trump / Russia: A Definitive History); since you altered the content of the the summary while simultaneously asking "Need exact quote" (ES) ?  Altering content here without following the source is another example of disruptive behavior, or even vandalism. X1\ (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You are referring to another thread, in which you accused me of being "too lazy" to read the sources. I had indeed read all sources that I could, i.e. the 4 out of 5 sources that were readily accessible online. I'm happy to admit that I did not buy or read the fifth source, a book by Seth Hettena, but frankly if that's the only one supporting your content, why did you bother quoting four others that do not support it? Now, in this thread, please quote us the relevant passage from page 75 which, according to your citation, should establish a connection between Russia and Trump's 2000 presidential bid. — JFG talk 23:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * another mis-characterization, as I pointed out earlier (01:46, 6 November 2018), it was "if" (see Read the long-established RSs in these articles, and if you are too lazy to do that you are only here to disrupt this article.). There is no use for crocodile tears here.  I gave you the benefit of doubt for lacking of effort instead of being deceptive.  My mistake.  Now, let's be constructive and improve the article, can we?  X1\ (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should work constructively to improve the article, and that's exactly what I've been doing and prodding you to do. Can I see what your source says now? — JFG talk 00:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added number to the revised item. X1\ (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: To-date there have been four Donald Trump presidential campaigns: 2000, 2012, 2016, and the current 2020. X1\ (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

2014/2015/2016 Cambridge Analytica, Bannon, Mercers, Nix, Giuliani, Laurence Levy, Arron Banks, Brexit, Wigmore, Farage, Leave.EU
These were deleted here (called "off topic") and here (with ES of "Cut down excess mentions of Cambridge Analytica that are off topic"). X1\ (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Right. How is a British political campaign related to Russian interference in the U.S: election? — JFG talk 22:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already place some of these in Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum. X1\ (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: See Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum for attempted deletion of Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum information after copied/transferred there. X1\ (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

UK/US synergistic interference by Russia
... to Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

... already in Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum, see "2014/2015/2016" thread...

... to Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

... already in Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

... while this 17 November 2015 part is moved there.

If all/some of these items become more connected to this page as RSs arise, or I missed something, we can restore them from deletion. X1\ (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: See Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum for attempted deletion of Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum information after copied/transferred there. X1\ (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Dec 2018
A report of 16 persons with contacts during the transition made in December 2018 likely should not be included on this page, and should be removed. Since there is no basis to place it on January 19, I moved it to November - January.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Item is in regards to time before Trump takes office, thus at the last day before last happens, per source. X1\ (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Follow-up on additional persons or organizations involved per Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (only partial, so far). It would appear the number is higher than just 16.  X1\ (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

On the "External Links" and "Further Reading" lists
So I replaced one of the items from a website with a rather inappropriate name with coverage by the Associated Press. See here. Please explain if you disagree. Nerd271 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, a book by Seth Hettena appears in both the references and the "Further Reading" list. Why the duplication? Nerd271 (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding repeated WhatTheFuckJustHappenedToday.com deletions
 * You didn't state in your ES you "replaced" an item.
 * Then you made a meaningless ES of "How uncivilized."
 * A response with an ES was given
 * X1\ (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding Trump / Russia: A Definitive History, there is a great deal of related information in this reference book, thus in "Further Reading". It could be used more often as a reference.  As this "story", as you have called it unfolds with further RSs coming from many new investigations, I expecting this reference to be increasingly cited along with other newer RSs, also.  X1\ (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I replaced it, yes, as can be seen by comparing the edits. I also gave a link above. It is all public; anybody who is skeptical can see for themselves. The link you gave is for your edit, not mine! And yours came later.
 * Again, my edit summary was not a joke. I was dead serious. I disagreed with the word choice, so I gave an alternative that is neutral, reliable, up-to-date, and free from profanities, namely the Associated Press. Wikipedia is a commonly used resource. And we do a disservice to our community by selecting poor sources.
 * Yes, you gave your reason, and I rejected it. (Scroll to the bottom.)
 * That book can be used more times, but your response did not address my question of duplication. If it is one of the citations, why is it in the "Further Reading" list? If someone is skeptical or wants to learn more, all they have to do is to hover their cursor over the in-text citation. What's the point? Nerd271 (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"Federal prosecutors are pursuing 14 other investigations that were referred by Mueller. Two were disclosed in the redacted report: potential wire fraud and federal employment law violations involving Michael Cohen, and charges against Gregory Craig, the former White House counsel under Obama, who was accused of lying to investigators and concealing work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. The other 12 referrals were redacted because the details could harm continuing investigations."X1\ (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow-up item from WtFJHT, example of utility of author's personal (et al. too, see page's Revision history) synthesis, analysis, and synopsis:

BRD sanction
Just a note that the Consensus Required rule has been replaced with the BRD rule for this page. ~Awilley (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Too much here
This article is including far too much information than would otherwise be useful, and has a particular focus on Donald Trump when the focus of this article should be about Russian government interference in the election. I'm not sure if this article would best be a timeline but there is no doubt this article should be cut back, and I'm going to start with the pointless glossary of names and a timeline that starts in the 1980s. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first point, not with your second.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly the contents contradict the title, and it's been that way for ages. I have repeatedly removed irrelevant stuff such as what happened in the 1980s, and have been systematically reverted by editor, who behaves as article WP:OWNER and does not assume good faith from other participants. Good luck. — JFG talk 08:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be any consensus for including a glossary of names and for events before 2015. Per WP:BRD I reverted the addition of that content, so please make sure you have consensus for these edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is premature to judge as only the redacted Mueller Report is public; and of the redactions, there are 12 referrals which continuing investigations. There are RSs for the other items.  Given the significance of this continuing event, I'd expect there to be a Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020).  X1\ (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not premature to say that an article doesn't need a glossary of names to precede it. Just introduce relevant people when they appear in the timeline. This article feels more like some documentary than an encyclopaedic article, including far too much detail about things other than the role of the Russian government in the 2016 elections. There is an unfortunate focus on Donald Trump and his presidential campaign altogether, rather than the actions of the Russian government, even when cutting down the article to between 2015 and 2017. Notifying and, who I encourage to remove irrelevant information from this article when they see any. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus here for deleting 76 KB that have been there for most of a year. Where is your track record on contributing to this timeline? There has been so much vandalism of this article that it is easy to see 76KB deleted from the top of the article as more vandalism. Where is the discussion beyond you just jumping in and deleting away? Websurfer2 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You deleted a lot of material that has been discussed in the past and approved by consensus. Read the archived talk pages before making major design changes or you risk being treated as a vandal.   Comments? Websurfer2 (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You ruined your own argument by deleting a bunch of material about actions of the Russian government. What are you trying to hide?Websurfer2 (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should really only cover events and periods linked (directly) to allegation of interference. But I would rather users made suggestions as to what we can remove before removing it, content is long standing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Websurfer2, all I removed what the list of individuals and events before 2015. Of course there is much more in the rest of the article that should be removed. For example I saw one entry that simply described Jared Kushner being appointed to some position by the president-elect. This is not something that the Russian government has done relevant to the election. I would like to hear which events from before 2015 you think are relevant, but the timeline went as far back as 1986 which is clearly ridiculous. This article is simply not supposed to be about Donald Trump's connections to Russians and Russia, this is supposed to be an article about what the Russian government has done in the 2016 elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW I agree that this timeline has been subjected to scope creep, and we should focus on Russian interference + the investigation thereof. I also think the glossary of relevant individuals was useful, but that was also expanded beyond reason to name everybody remotely mentioned in anything having to do with Trump's election -- again, out of scope. I would be willing to suggest a shorter list of names that have been clearly identified as directly related to Russian interference. — JFG talk 11:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How about we leave the name list in the article for now but restore the other removals I made? Concerned editors can look through what has been removed to see if there is something they think should be kept, but we're never going to get this article to a reasonable size if we have to propose each part to remove. The continuous additions have been made without appropriate oversight. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Current status includes glossary and excludes pre-2015 stuff. Further trimming can be discussed from this starting point. — JFG talk 23:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop these mass deletions until you have WP:CONSENSUS (and I don't mean just between the two of you). A statement from one editor that they don't like the content and two endorsements within 65 minutes is not WP:CONSENSUS, violates WP:SILENT, shows WP:OWNERSHIP, and is a form of WP:EDITWAR. Good faith editing involves acknowledging past consensus expressed in the archived talk pages, whether or not you agree with it. Insisting that your consent is required to modify or add content in areas that you don't like is a clear expression of WP:OWNERSHIP. Websurfer2 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you review the WP:1RR warnings displayed at the top of this talk page when editing: Websurfer2 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
 * Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
 * There was never consensus to keep all the stuff prior to 2015. What happened was that editors opposed to this undue scope creep were badgered, accused of bad faith, and got tired of arguing. Read the archives. See for example the RfC on Trump's 1987 trip. Now, time for a fresh start. — JFG talk 06:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. There wasn't any consensus to include the things that I removed. Whoever placed those things in the article didn't obtain consensus for them. There is absolutely no way that my edits can be seen as vandalism, you're just trying to pretend that it is so that you can revert it more than once. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism is blatantly false, and WP:NOTVANDALISM. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Events prior to 2015
Given the threads above and the slow-moving edit war that has been ongoing for a few days regarding pre-2015 events, there are clearly editors who think that nothing is relevant and others who think that everything is relevant. Perusing the archives, I can't find a positive or negative consensus for anything, although several entries have been disputed, some of them repeatedly over 2+ years. Therefore I'd like to suggest a constructive way to resolve our differences: Let me know what you all think. — JFG talk 22:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep all pre-2015 events out of the timeline for now
 * 2) Group these events by theme (Trump's 1987 trip, Butina's activities, etc.)
 * 3) Discuss each theme within its own thread, and come to consensus on relevancy
 * 4) Include content on which consensus was reached
 * 5) For each theme on which local consensus was not reached, start an RfC to gather wider community input.
 * Looking through the talk page archives and the edit history, there are many instances of added content being challenged, which has been largely ignored and reinstated by the two editors contributing the most content to the article. I would suggest creating a new article about Trump's connections to Russian entities if editors believe that is an important topic, while keeping this article simply for the Russian government's involvement in the 2016 election. Not everything in the Mueller Report or reliable sources about Trump and Russia has to be here, and we're certainly not here to make a case and convince anybody of the extent or severity of the connections between Trump and the Russian government. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said above: if you think that any specific event does not belong to the list, please tell which one, and perhaps it should be removed. However, you are saying that ALL events before year 2015 do not belong to the page. Unfortunately, you are wrong because a number of RS (currently cited on the page) tell they are relevant. If you insist, please start an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Relevancy has nothing to do with the scope of the article. Clearly the Russian Federation is very relevant to this article, but we're not including everything there is about Russia. Again, if editors find it important that Wikipedia documents Trump's connections with Russian entities, that can form a separate article which would certainly have some overlap with this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a timeline of events, not a list of countries. If RS are saying that an event X in Russian Federation (for example, creation of Internet Research Agency) was relevant to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, then yes, it should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By that logic the creation of Russia and United States would be included in this article, or the birth of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, or the existence of Russian people, or even elections themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @JFG. Yes, all of that sound reasonable. In addition to the source-based arguments above, I think this background history content should be kept because it is really important for understanding of the events in 2016 and later. Perhaps this could be split, but I do not see how. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. So if you agree with my plan (all of that sound reasonable), then why did you restore the content again? Item #1 of my proposal is to keep the pre-2015 content out while we debate it. Could you self-revert this, and then we work together here? — JFG talk 19:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you mean to restore last stable version (i.e. to include the content), and then discuss. This is standard approach when long-standing content was disputed. This is also required per WP:BRD and should be used in a case of an RfC (you are welcome to start one). My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, we just disagree. As I wrote in a thread above, There was never consensus to keep all the stuff prior to 2015. I suggested a way forward, now what? Do you agree with my suggested action items #2 to #5, even if you disagree about #1? You see, I really want to bring all interested editors on board with a constructive process, otherwise we'll be arguing forever and get frustrated. As recent editors to this talk page, your input would be welcome about how to proceed. — JFG talk 22:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * JFG, you have no idea how much I appreciate your collaborative approach. It's much appreciated. I agree with MVBW, and also believe that we should work from the last stable version, but of course including the later good edits. That basically just means we restore all those huge deletions, but that may have been done, except for background history part. That should also be restored until we have decided what to do with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope what this proposal of mine has not gone unnoticed, as though I've taken steps to remove unnecessary parts of the article and continue to support that, I'm more of an inclusionist when it comes to Wikipedia. If editors believe that Donald Trump's relationships with Russian entities generally (government, businesses, organisations, individuals, etc) are a notable topic for an encyclopaedia, then we ought to have an article detailing that. This article, which should be about what the Russian government and people involved with it did in the 2016 election, is instead also about answering why this occurred and the needless backstory of anything and anyone involved in the interference. This way it is not as if these connections between Trump and Russian entities would be removed, they would just be disaggregated from the actual interference itself. I certainly hope the unhelpful length of the article is not a strategy to obscure the Trump campaign's involvement. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree with There was never consensus to keep all the stuff prior to 2015. given how long that content had been in the article, but the content is now clearly disputed. I do not think it is productive to edit war over removing the disputed content before coming to consensus here, especially considering the 1 revert per 24 hour discretionary sanctions on this page. I very much appreciate 's efforts to organize discussion on this.Based on what I have read in the disputed section, I do think there is a legitimate rationale for including pre 2015 content generally. However, there does look to be some irrelevant material in there as well. If there are specific "themes" to the content, it would be helpful to group them and determine the legitimacy of each, but that is a non-trivial amount of work for potentially not much benefit. If no other options are put forward, following #2-#5 above may be the best way to attempt to resolve this.Thinking more generally about what would make sense to include in this timeline, is it fair to say that the 2016 Russian interference was planned well in advance of the election? If that is the case then there clearly deserves to be pre 2015 content, but the important point is that it should be limited to plans/preparations for the interference/influence in the election. Any more subjective/circumstantial connections to the election should be scrutinized and only included with a lot of supporting evidence/references. Anyway, I hope this conversation continues in a productive fashion. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 23:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * On the matter of how long the content has been in the article, that might make sense if it wasn't for that content being regularly objected to and reverted over the course of months, but then simply added back into the article by X1\ or Websurfer2.
 * The crucial question here is this: is it fair to say that the 2016 Russian interference was planned well in advance of the election? The answer is effectively no. Organisations connected to the Russian government, and agencies of the Russian government itself, have been involved for years in attempting to influence public opinion and elections, including the Internet Research Agency. The main target of these organisations has never been a United States presidential election, it's just simply another event they have sought to involve themselves with. Acting as if Trump travelling to the then-Soviet Union in the 1980s was laying the groundwork for him eventually contesting a presidential election is simply absurd. According to all the reliable sources, including what this article relies on, the Russian government and other Russian entities specifically began to be involved, and planned their involvement, after Donald Trump decided to contest the Republican Party nomination. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I was pinged...Thank you JFG for proposing a roadmap forward. Whatever you end up doing, daily reverts of 100,000 bytes of content into and out of the article isn't going to help the process. ~Awilley (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, I think that we can include timeline events that preceded 2015 if properly referenced to sources that clearly connect the events to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and provided that the material is not trivial or duplicative. In my opinion, which I stated years ago, this article has way too much detail for an encyclopedia article.- MrX 🖋 13:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If so, you are welcome to suggest which exactly items should be removed or maybe just remove them. Knowing your overall approach and previous contributions on other pages, I probably will have no objections. But I can not tell for other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather leave it to others. I have not really been involved for a long time and I see that task as a major time sink.- MrX 🖋 00:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the U.S. police investigation, the Russians decide to disrupt the U.S. election by using facebook accounts and hacking into abd releasing Democratic Party emails. They may also have tried to hack into election machines. The Kremlin did not favor any candidate and did not coordinate their activities with any presidential campaign. There is clearly a need for an article that summarizes all these alleged activities. However, the rest of it is irrelevant. Trump's visit to Russia in 1987 for example would only have been relevant if he had been recruited into the KGB. Information about the claims of Russian interference is swamped by irrelevant details. TFD (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Kremlin did not favor any candidate"? Well, that definitely contradicts facts we know. "The Kremlin ... did not coordinate their activities with any presidential campaign"? Well, perhaps the presidential campaigns in US did not coordinate their activities with the Kremlin, but the Kremlin certainly did coordinate its activities with the election campaigns in the USA. My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? It takes two parties to "coordinate" anything. What we see from the detailed findings of the Mueller report is that several people more or less connected to Russia (and few of them with the Kremlin) attempted to contact the Trump campaign and offered various "deals". Most of these attempts failed or were rebuffed; the one that generated most coverage and speculation was Natalia Veselnitskaya's infamous Trump Tower meeting, which according to all eyewitnesses lasted about 20 minutes and had no followup. So if you see any other "coordination with the Kremlin", please tell Mueller, because he probably skipped it. — JFG talk 23:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's possible for one party to co-ordinate their activities to match another party without their knowledge. This is most clear with the social media accounts controlled by organisations sympathetic to the Russian government. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked it up again. The Russian troll farm indictment says their original intention was to “spread distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.” It was only beginning in 2016 that they “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.” That renders any refererences to Trump (or any other Americans) pre-2015 irrelevant.
 * Coordination does in fact require people on both sides. Several members of the Trump campaign met with Russians, which should be mentioned.
 * TFD (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Very true that the actual facts of Russian entity involvement in the election are obscured with events that are only related to the subjects and not the involvement itself. The focus should be on these Russian organisations, not Donald Trump particularly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to try and figure out where to reply. I agree with 1, but as there is no consensus lets go with 2 and 5.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to JFG's ping of me, I don't feel I have anything in particular to contribute. Widefox ; talk 12:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)