Misplaced Pages

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:41, 13 February 2017 editOnly in death (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,896 edits →Binney and McGovern's comments on James Clapper← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:56, 2 January 2025 edit undoCzello (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers41,552 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 74.124.173.248 (talk) to last revision by CzelloTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{2016 US Election AE}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{American English}} {{American English}}
{{FailedGA|19:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)|topic=Politics and government|page=2}}
{{Old moves
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|1=
| list =
{{WikiProject Computer Security|importance=High |computing-importance=high}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, '''Not moved''', 21 December 2016, ]
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=mid}}
*: MRV, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, '''Endorsed''', 7 January 2017, ]
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, '''Not moved''', ]
{{WikiProject Espionage|importance=Top}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Grizzly Steppe, '''Not moved''', 30 December 2016, ]
{{WikiProject European history|importance=High}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, '''No consensus''', 7 January 2017, ]
{{WikiProject History|importance=Mid}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia, '''No consensus''', 4 February 2017, ]
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=High}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes| {{WikiProject Internet|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Computer Security |class=B |importance=High |computing-importance=}} {{WikiProject Journalism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Crime |class=B |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Science=y|Technology=y|Intel=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
{{WikiProject Donald Trump |class=B |importance=High}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums |class=B |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|pol=y|hist=y}}
{{WikiProject Espionage |class=B |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject United States|importance=High |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=Top |USPE=yes |USPE-importance=High |US-history=yes |US-history-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Hillary Clinton |class=B |importance=High}} {{WikiProject United States Presidents|importance=high|trump=yes|trump-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject International relations |class=B |importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject 2010s|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Internet |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Journalism |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |importance=mid |Science=yes |Technology=y |Intel=y}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance= |American=yes |American-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Russia |class=B |importance=Mid |pol= |hist=}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=High |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=Top |USPE= |USPE-importance=}}
}} }}
{{Press {{Press
Line 37: Line 30:
|date=December 21, 2016 |date=December 21, 2016
|quote=The 2016 Presidential election sure brought the world a lot of stress. It also brought the world a lot of misinformation. That could be one reason why so many of the most edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 were politically related. ... ] (641) |quote=The 2016 Presidential election sure brought the world a lot of stress. It also brought the world a lot of misinformation. That could be one reason why so many of the most edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 were politically related. ... ] (641)

|url2=https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-the-15-most-controversial-wikipedia-pages-of-2017-1.5730022
|accessdate2=May 20, 2018
|org2=]
|title2=How Crazy Was Last Year? The 15 Most Controversial Misplaced Pages Articles Paint a Dark Picture
|author2=Omer Benjakob
|date2=10 January 2017
|quote2=Media outlets around the world recently compiled their annual stories on the most popular Misplaced Pages articles of the year. ... ]
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 4 |counter = 22
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Annual readership}}
__TOC__


== Why does Misplaced Pages label the 2020 election theft conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory, but not the 2016 Collusion? ==
== RfC: Should Putin's December 23 press conference statement be included or excluded?==
{{archivetop|By breadth of support, there were 14 editors who supported inclusion of Putin's response and 4 who opposed inclusion. Argumentation saw equally valid presentations on both sides, however, the significant breadth of support in favor of inclusion helps to establish a clear consensus. That said, there was widespread agreement, on both sides, that inclusion should not come in the form of a verbatim quote but a summary or paraphrase of the essential elements of the statement. '''The consensus is that Vladimir Putin's December 23 response should be included in this article in an abbreviated, summarized, or paraphrased form, but not as a direct quote.''' ] (]) 13:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 03:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1489720791}}
At a December 23 press conference, ] responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election: " are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame. In my view this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Filipov|first1=David|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/trump-syria-hacking-and-terrorism-in-play-as-russias-putin-meets-the-press/2016/12/23/28ead25a-c878-11e6-acda-59924caa2450_story.html?utm_term=.db6384e34a20|title=Putin to Democratic Party: You lost, get over it|work=]|date=2016-12-23|accessdate=2016-12-26}}</ref> Does Putin's response belong in the article? <small>(I am doing this as an RfC because the existing discretionary sanctions on American Politics effectively give ''anyone'' veto power over ''any'' material merely by deleting it, regardless of how flimsy the rationale for deletion may be—although in practice this is ''constantly'' abused and inconsistently enforced.)</small>] (]) 03:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

===Survey – Putin response===
*'''Support''' adding Putin's response. This material was deleted as by ], but it's hard for me to imagine how ] could apply to Putin's own response to allegations that he personally interfered in the U.S. election.] (]) 03:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This direct quote by Putin directly pertaining to the issue (in an article devoid of quotes by Putin) certainly is appropriate under the "Commentary and Reaction" section, the "Russian Government" sub-section, as originally entered by TheTimesAreAChanging. There currently is no direct quote by the man directly implicated in these actions and this one is notable, well-sourced, and encyclopedic. ] (]) 04:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this is a distraction. Obviously, Russia denies this and is trying to make this about the election and not about the violations committed by their intelligence and disinformation agencies. - ] (]) 05:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
::You have cited a political, but not an encyclopedic, reason for excluding the statement of an alleged perpetrator of the action the article is devoted to. Your guess as to what Putin's motives are is irrelevant. The direct statement of the alleged perpetrator of the activity the article is devoted to is 100% completely relevant and 100% deserving of inclusion in the "Reaction and Commentary" sub-section. ] (]) 06:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
::Obviously US politicians and officials never do this. That's what makes their opinions so reliable. ] (]) 11:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
:::I'm hesitant to respond here. I will remind you to assume good faith, and to pay close attention to comments before responding. If you'd like to have a two-sided conversation, I'm all for it. If you want to go off on tangents, there are other contributors to this article what will likely indulge you. - ] (]) 06:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It is clearly one of the more notable statements in the "Commentary and Reaction" section. It has received more than enough coverage in the non-Russian press. This despite the fact that (a) it's very recent (b) national media coverage is necessarily skewed toward reporting on statements made by domestic politicians (i.e. not Putin), something which has to be taken into account per wp:systemicbias. If it were up to me, the "reaction" section would be down to a paragraph, and a lot of the less-than-informative commentary (including this taunting by Putin) would go. since that does not appear to be in the cards, Putin's statement from his ''major'' annual press conference must be kept per WP:DUE. ] (]) 11:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I think we have to include a <u>brief</u> mention of this based on the widespread coverage in reliable sources, even though it's empty posturing and diversionary.- ]] 18:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
::Can you be a little bit more specific about what you mean by "brief"? ] (]) 22:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes. We can simply summarize what he said. For example, "Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat". Quoting him directly is just lazy writing.- ]] 15:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::::That seems like a good idea, especially since we weren't quoting him directly but rather giving a translation of what he said in Russian. (There's a different translation with essentially the same or similar meaning on the President of Russia webcite.) --] (]) 16:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Statement is obviously relevant, and widely cited in RS, {{u|Volunteer Marek}}'s POV notwithstanding. Suggest a ] close. — ] <sup>]</sup> 08:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
*<s>Oppose</s> – It wasn't specified what "all fronts" meant. For example, one of those fronts could be the war in Syria. Putin's comments about the elections accusations came a little later in the reliable source.

::" Putin dismissed suggestions Moscow had helped Trump to victory in any way however.

::&nbsp; 'It's not like that,' he said. 'All of this (the accusations) speaks of the current administration's systemic problems.' "
:--] (]) 16:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Bob K31416}} You should really withdraw your '''oppose''', as it is based on false pretenses. "''One of those fronts could be the war in Syria.''" No, Russia actually ''is'' involved in the war in Syria. In context, Putin was quite clearly referring to the U.S. elections: (Or use Russia's official translation: ) More importantly, none of our reliable sources thought to misinterpret Putin's words in the highly creative manner you suggest, as I will document below.] (]) 03:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::The quote you just gave, together with his point elsewhere about the the substance of the leaks being more important than the identity of the leakers, is IMO more substantive and measured than the stuff about politicians not being "graceful." The latter is too close to the shrill rants from ex-spies about the "hideousness" of Trump's treatment of their courageous colleagues. ] (]) 10:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::I think there's a problem with your RfC proposal because the given source doesn't clearly indicate that the quote is about the elections. The fact that you had to go to other sources, seems to admit that your given source is inadequate. You might try making a proposal that is correctly sourced by using material from the sources in your recent message above and we'll see if it works. --] (]) 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::::I had no idea that the one source I gave could be so misconstrued, or that we were going to be ''this'' pedantic. I have replaced with the of the same day, which uses the same Putin quote but is even more unequivocal regarding its meaning.] (]) 05:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' While it would be appropriate to include a well-sourced statement that Putin denies Russian involvement in the hacking, that is not what this RfC would provide. This RfC promotes the clearly UNDUE and irrelevant fact that Putin denigrates the Democrats. Per my statement and others in the discussion section below, editors should oppose this ]y RfC and we should instead follow policy to include appropriate accounts of Putin's denial. ]] 19:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' to including as direct quotation. This should be mentioned, but only briefly summarized as the fact that Putin denied the claim. I do not see any reason for including direct quotation here. He is not a ], and the statements adds nothing to the simple fact of denial beyond disparaging other people. The only reason to include quotation is to disparage democrats, which is not the purpose of WP.] (]) 21:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
::It's also not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to exclude quotes just because they disparage Democrats. If the quote is notable enough, it should be included, either in direct or paraphrased form. -] (]) 22:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
:::So, why exactly anyone would consider this quotation notable? This is just a slander that provides zero information. Saying that, I realize that certain slander can be notable (e.g. "shoot the rabid dogs!" by ] or "kill them in an toilet" by Putin) as described in numerous books. However, I do not see why that particular slander would be notable. ] (]) 05:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::::If the Russian President makes a public statement on alleged Russian hacking, then it's inherently notable. The evidence for that notability is the wide press coverage Putin's remarks have received. It doesn't matter if you consider the content of those remarks to be "slander that provides zero information." A lot of people think President Obama's statements on the issue, and the statements of his intelligence agencies, are also slander that provide zero information. But they're notable, as evidenced by the press coverage they've received. The only possible reason to exclude this information, that I can see, is political. -] (]) 17:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::Yes, the ''claim'' (the denial) is notable or at least deserve to be noted on the page. However, the ''quotation'' is not notable. It might became notable in a year from now (just as in two my examples above) if it will be mentioned in books on the subject. ] (]) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''': These statements have been widely reported, and they deal directly with the content of this article. I think it's obvious they belong in the article. -] (]) 22:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' including the quotation, which is undue. Of course Putin's denial of involvement, properly sourced, should be included.] (]) 22:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Volunteer Marek}} Could you please help me understand your reasoning behind invoking ] on this? "UNDUE" is of course very broadly writter, and it is not clear to me what aspect of the "undue" policy you think including this quote violates. ] (]) 22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Sure. This isn't an article about "Putin's opinions about the Democratic Party of the United States". Which makes inclusion of this quote POVFORKish. Like I said, his denial of Russian involvement is of course DUE, but his opinions about the Dems, is not.] (]) 22:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': If this is "undue" for the reasons given by Volunteer Marek et al., so is roughly 90% of the "Reactions" section, which has little to do with the narrow question of whether or not the hackers were employed by the Russian state. Editors are being highly selective--per wp:systemicbias--in what they consider "undue." Putin's other point was that it's not who stole the emails, but what's in them. Remember that Putin himself tried push the same "our enemies did it" line as the Democrats when the ] came out, to ''distract from the contents'' of the docs. Would pointing that out also be "undue"? Remember that this article is about Russian "interference in the ''election''", not Russia's "interference in the DNC's IT infrastructure." Therefore the broader political issues can't be dismissed, and in fact are not dismissed by RS. ] (]) 01:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::Ummmmmm.... that's actually not true at all. Blatantly not true. Can you *specifically* which parts of the "Reactions" section have "little to do" with the Russian interference in the US election? Because when I read it, it looks like all of is precisely about that. (And seriously, trying to distinguish between "Russian interference in US election" and "Russian interference in DNC structure" is just silly) ] (]) 06:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::{{tq| "Former&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;said foreign interference in U.S. elections was an&nbsp;]&nbsp;and called it the "political equivalent" of the&nbsp;]"}}. Let's see: an ex-spy saying "its 911!" is wp:due and relevant; a sitting president saying that the Democrats have used the "Russian interference" angle as a distraction from their political mistakes and from the content of the emails is off-topic. Did I get that about right? Finally there is nothing silly about the distinction: Russian "interference in the election" encompasses everything from hacking to fundamentally compromising the electoral process. Some others (rough irrelevance score, with Putin's remarks as the 60% baseline): Trump on WMD (60%); Trump on China (100%); ex-CIA Little on Trump disrespecting CIA heroes (100%); ex-CIA Harlow on Trump's "hideousness" (100%); Clinton on Putin's personal vendetta (50%); ] calling for intervention by the electoral college (50%) because it's the worst scandal ever (a year ago, the worst was "Benghazi-gate", if memory serves); probably a few others I was too lazy to cite. ] (]) 10:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::You said, quote, ''"90% of the "Reactions" section, which has little to do with the narrow question of whether or not the hackers were employed by the Russian state"''. You haven't actually managed to substantiate that at all, just made up some numbers. Here, let me respond (irrelevance score, with Putin's remarks as the 87.456% baseline):
:::::Ex-CIA director (3.455%), Trump on WMD (8.334%), Trump on China (actually barely mentioned) (100*(sqr(2)/5.7)%), ex-CIA Little on Trump disrespecting CIA heroes (actually disrespecting CIA assessment of the hack) (2x+y=2.8, x=y, .01*x%), ex-CIA Harlow (actually not Trump's hideousness, but that the '''dispute''' is hideousness, please read that correctly) (.01*(e^2)/2*e^1.1%), Clinton on Putin's vendetta (.01*lim (x--> inf) (5*(x^4)+6)/(6*(x^4)+3*(x^3)+2x)... %), McElvaine calling for intervention (4.9494949494949494949494949494949494949494949494949494949439494949494%).
:::::See how that works? ] (]) 04:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

::::FWIW, it doesn't look like the two of you are discussing your issue in terms of the policy ], which begins with,
:::::"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by ], in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
::::--] (]) 03:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' including ''mention'' of this. However the 'quote' is not a quote, but a translation, so it doesn't really seem to belong. I think we can describe his statements as blaming and criticizing the Democrats and denying the Russia's involvement (as opposed to simply saying that he denied Russian involvement), but any English version of what he said cannot, by definition be a quote. We shouldn't try to present it as such. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 16:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
::FYI, MrX suggested above, "Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat." --] (]) 17:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}* '''Support including the citation''' as proposed by TheTimesAreAChanging. There is a whole section of the article dedicated to whether Putin personally or not directed the hacks. He has responded to these accusations, which makes it relevant, and he has been quoted by a number of ]. It's a no-brainer.] (]) 10:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

*'''Support but shorten.''' I agree with Volunteer Marek about WP:UNDUE. Half of this quote isn't really about Russia's involvement in the U.S. election but a snarky comment about Democrats' dignity. And the remaining part can probably be adequately summarized without quotation. Putin denied Russia's involvement and criticized the Democrats for casting blame. That should do it. --] (]) 22:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Since we have an entire article devoted to an unproven allegation against Putin, it is due weight to include the few sentences where he responds. ] (]) 04:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As Trump and Putin are the two main accused, any statement by them is relevant. ] (]) 19:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support but shorten''' (significantly). I agree with Dr. Fleischman & Volunteer Marek re: UNDUE. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' but paraphrase per MrX suggestion above ''(Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat)''. ] (]) 01:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' (summoned by bot) as an aspect of the incident that has been widely reported, but ideally with the quote shortened or paraphrased. ] (]) 15:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

===Threaded discussion===
{{reflist-talk}}
*] has nothing to do with who made the response, and everything to do with the extent of coverage in reliable sources. If you would like to convince other editor that this material should be added to the article, you might start by showing that other reliable sources are treating it as important and that it helps readers understand the subject.- ]] 03:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
**Okay—I gave you ''Reuters''—here's and A Google search for gets 263,000 hits. And this story just broke a few hours ago.] (]) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
**... , , , ] (]) 05:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
*I'm changing the RfC title from the highly argumentative "Is Putin's own response UNDUE?" to "Should Putin's December 23 press conference statement be included or excluded?" PEr ], the question presented in an RfC should be brief, neutral, and specific. The original title was none of these. And {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}, you should put your argument/perspective under "survey" or "threaded discussion" &mdash; not under the question presented. These are pretty simple and important rules for RfCs.
:Separately but relatedly, it's also incorrect to frame the issue of whether "Putin's own response should be included" &mdash; his response ''already is included'', under "Reactions: Russian government," we clearly and specifically note what Putin's representatives have said (denied that Russia participated, termed accusation "nonsense") and additional quote Russian foreign minister Lavrov as well. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
::Why would it be preferable to cite only "Putin's representatives," but not the man himself—especially when a journalist told ''ABC'' Putin was "personally involved"?] (]) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}In light of the malformed presentation, I suggest somebody archive this and that if OP wishes to pursue the RfC a properly stated and formatted version be presented. ]] 03:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
:Only in American Politics, folks.] (]) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
::If you move your argumentation out of the question section (to the comments or threaded discussion section), that would in my view fix the problem. This is a pretty simple thing to do to follow pretty simple RfC rules. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}We're only going to have a problem a month from now if this RfC is not properly set forth. I am going to post on AN asking for assistance. The cherrypicked statement by Putin on the 23rd is not about the hacking, it's another in his denigrations of the Democrats and by implication Sec'y Clinton, for whom he has longstanding animosity. There ''are'' RS accounts of Putin denying Russian involvement in the hacking and it's appropriate to say Russia denied the conclusions of the US Gov't, but this RfC is misstated and cites Putin's off-topic dissembling on a different subject. This needs to be closed and a proper RfC or edit -- on the topic of this article -- added to the talk page or article. ]] 16:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
:The premise of the RfC that "Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election" with the given quote, is not supported by the reliable source. Presentation of Putin's response to accusations came a little later in the reliable source, as indicated in my comment in the survey section. --] (]) 17:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
::That's why this RfC is a hot mess. Even if the putative outcome were "support" it would not relate to the relevant matter, namely that Putin ''has'' denied involvement. So any supporting !votes here are supporting an undue off-topic and irrelevant statement. That's why we need to shut this down and mount a properly stated RfC, although frankly, as others have stated, the posting of this RfC seems like an argumentative and ]y reaction to {{ping|Volunteer Marek}}'s appropriate reversion of the off-topic content. Is there an Admin in the house? Please can't we get this straight? OP has been asked to edit, but at this point we have responses and it is too late for OP to correct this. ]] 17:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Not sure if admins intervene in this type of situation. In the meantime, you might consider adding your opinion to the survey section and hope that more will see the problem with this RfC and oppose it --] (]) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
::::I will do that, thank you, but I will also challenge any close that purports to endorse off-topic article content due to the disruptive malformed statement of the RfC. ]] 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::As documented below, Bob K31416 and SPECIFICO are playing with fantasies rather than facts, and SPECIFICO is the only one being disruptive (while threatening further disruption). Putin's remarks are apparently so damaging to the narrative these editors seek to promote that they find it easier to assimilate them into their worldview by assiduously denying that Putin said what everyone else heard him say (Russia's be damned!).] (]) 03:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}
:I'm not sure what kind of alternate universe Bob K31416 and SPECIFICO are living in when they claim "''The premise of the RfC that 'Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election' with the given quote, is not supported by the reliable source.''" is Russia's official transcript of the press conference:
*'''Yevgeny Primakov''': Our western colleagues often tell us that you have the power to manipulate the world, designate presidents, and interfere in elections here and there. How does it feel to be the most powerful person on Earth? Thank you.
*'''Vladimir Putin''': I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. '''The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors.''' I have questions and some thoughts in this regard. We know that '''not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that?''' We may have celebrated this on the "vestiges of a 17th century chapel," but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? '''This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues''', as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting.&nbsp;... The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. '''They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.'''
:And here is how this was reported in reliable sources:
* ''The Washington Post'', December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladi­mir Putin has a message for the White House and Democratic leaders who accuse him of stealing their candidate’s victory: '''Don't be sore losers. That was how Putin answered a question Friday at his nationally televised annual news conference about whether Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.''' The Democrats 'are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame,' he told the nearly 1,400 journalists packed into a Moscow convention hall for the nearly four-hour event. 'In my view, this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity.'"
* ''Business Insider'', December 23, 2016: "'''Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that top Democrats are being sore losers by, in part, looking to blame Hillary Clinton's stunning election loss on hacks said to have been orchestrated by the Kremlin.''' 'They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame,' Putin said. 'I think that this is an affront to their own dignity.' 'It is important to know how to lose gracefully,' he added, suggesting Clinton's loss was a result of a 'gap between the elite's vision of what is good and bad' and the 'broad popular masses.'"
* ''Fox News'', December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladimir Putin followed up a warm letter to Donald Trump with a more terse message for U.S. Democrats Friday: '''Don't blame me for your November drubbing.'''&nbsp;... 'Democrats are losing on every front and looking for people to blame everywhere,' he said. 'They need to learn to lose with dignity.' 'The Democratic Party lost not only the presidential elections, but elections in the Senate and Congress.&nbsp;... Is that also my work?' he said. He went on to ridicule Democrats for never-say-die efforts to overturn the Nov. 8 presidential election, first by calling for recounts, then trying to get electors to flip. 'The fact that the current ruling party called Democratic has blatantly forgotten the original definition of its name is evident if one takes into consideration unscrupulous use of administrative resource and appeals to electors not to concede to voters' choice,' Putin said, according to the Russian news agency Tass."
:Do I really need to go on? There is '''no serious argument''' that this material has nothing to do with "''claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election''"; as both the official transcript and the cited RS make clear, Putin chose to respond to the question about interfering in the election by emphasizing the Democrats's need for an external scapegoat. The real argument is simply that some editors ] ''how'' Putin chose to respond, citing ]—red link very much intended.] (]) 03:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::That wasn't my argument. Maybe my recent message responding to you in the Survey section might clarify that. --] (]) 05:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

*I don't understand. How is this content off-topic? Putin discussed the hacking scandal - isn't that directly relevant to this article? -] (]) 22:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Marteau}}It was not the Democrats accusing the Russians of this or that. It was the official intelligence assessment of the US Government, accepted by both parties in Congress and just about everywhere else except the Trump team, who endorsed and requested Russian interference. ]] 00:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|SPECIFICO}} It is not our task to judge the correctness, or incorrectness, of Putin's statement. It is his opinion and his reply to the accusations he has faced, and it belongs in the "Reaction and Commentary" section. But besides that, the Democrats certainly DID accuse the Russians "of this or that". They actually made quite a big to-do about it, as I recall. ] (]) 01:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::But my point is that his "accusers" are not the Democrats, it is the US Government. Only the Trump campaign and associates deny this. ]] 01:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC) ]] 01:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::::"" ] (]) 01:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::I was attempting to respond to your statement above that Putin's derogation of the Democrats is on topic for this article because it was the Democratic Party that accused/determined that the Russians hacked. But it was not the Democratic Party, it was the US Government -- the Obama Administration for the executive branch based on the National Intelligence Assessment, and a broad bi-partisan array of US members of Congress. So Putin's snarky put-down presumably of the campaign of Sec'y Clinton, whom he despises, is not relevant to this article. It might be relevant to an article about Secretary Clinton's campaign, since it is a meme that various talking heads on the cable networks have also presented. ]] 02:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, then. ] (]) 02:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Please specify the disagreement. Do you doubt that mainstream RS all report that it was the US Gov't intelligence assessment that Russia hacked? ]] 02:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::This article is about Russian interference in the election. Democrats, using US intelligence as a basis, have in fact accused Russia of interference. Putin has addressed Democratic criticism. I feel that these issues are worthy of inclusion in an article about Russian interference in the election. I think it has foundation and rationale for inclusion based on policy and guidelines. Thats my stance, you disagree. Now, I'll resume agreeing to disagree if you don't mind :) ] (]) 02:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::If we treated the U.S. government like any other government—for example, the former Soviet regime—we would be far more skeptical of official U.S. government statistics on GDP, inflation, or anything else—and we would be particularly cautious when reporting on classified CIA intelligence analyses anonymously leaked to with no supporting evidence. If we were capable of looking at the U.S. government objectively, we would recognize that it has the same feuding power centers and careerist incentives to the tow the line as any other state—that the CIA is perfectly capable of fabricating intelligence to suit the needs of the incumbent administration—indeed, that ''the CIA has a long history of doing exactly that''. Recall, for example, ]'s bowing to pressure from LBJ to reduce the CIA's estimate of North Vietnamese/Viet Cong troop strength: ] (That illusion was, of course, ].) (SPECIFICO even recently cited —but I'm sure that could never happen today!) The publicly available facts are as follows:
::::::::*As of —just days before the election (and at a time when pundits were still postulating a 90-98% chance that Clinton would win)—the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community was that "''even the hacking into Democratic emails&nbsp;... was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Donald Trump.''" This assessment was radically altered following Trump's surprise victory (and shortly before the Electoral College voted), but—so far as is known—the intelligence community has not acquired any new information on Russia's actions or intentions since October 31.
::::::::*On December 9—'''the same day that President Obama ordered a full investigation into Russia's alleged role in the election'''— to
::::::::*After leaking these shocking new claims to the press, the intelligence community — the ongoing review ordered by Obama! In Representative ] called the intelligence community's conduct "''absolutely disgraceful''," adding: (The CIA has violated its charter to ] many times in the past—and has a history of rigging democratic elections across the globe, from Italy to Chile.)
::::::::*Whatever the current official U.S. government position, the U.S. "free press" unquestioningly towed the government line in a coordinated and Orwellian manner, resulting in headlines such as the following: ''CNN'', October 19, 2016. cf. ''CNN'', December 10, 2016.
::::::::*Finally, on December 23, Putin pointed out the obvious: Claims that "''Russia hacked the election''" look suspiciously like a trumped-up (pardon the pun) attempt to obfuscate the Democrats's stunning repudiation by invoking a sinister foreign bogeyman as the scapegoat. This is consistent with the above facts, as well as the broader psychological phenomenon of the Western Left incessantly blaming "''the Russians!''" for its continual series of defeats. (See, e.g., ''Sky News'', December 14, 2016; ''The Sun'', December 14, 2016.)
:::::::::Because Putin's remarks are so profoundly damaging to the current official U.S. government position (itself likely to suddenly, inexplicably change ''yet again'' after January 20, 2017), editors are pretending that Putin ''didn't really say'' what the says he said, or ''couldn't possibly have meant it''—and, in any case, doubting the accuracy and integrity of the CIA is inherently ], ''or something''.] (]) 06:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::The last point too accurate to be said out loud. I can't wait to see what will be considered "due" and "reliable" for this article after January 20th, 2017. US officials say... ] (]) 10:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I frankly can't believe that we're arguing over whether a widely covered statement by the Russian President on the hacking scandal and election is relevant to this article. Even more than that, I can't believe that there are people who are arguing that it isn't related to "2016 United States election interference by Russia." I feel like I've stepped into an alternate reality. Really, can we just step back and try to approach this article with less blatant POV battling? -] (]) 04:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:{{Agree}} <sub style="border:1px solid #3333ff;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 10:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:Indeed. The thrashing and wailing accompanying the proposed inclusion of a quote by the man directly accused of involvement in this issue, in the "Commentary and Reactions - Russian Government" subsection is becoming ludicrous and at this point I have to believe POV pushing is involved. The proposed quote does more than simply deny Russian involvement; it ascribes a purported motive and is something anyone who hopes to fully understand the dynamics of this issue should be exposed to. His words also capture the tenor of the issue and the animosity present beyond which what a sterile paraphrase can capture. That this statement is Putin's POV is clear, and any bemoaning about how it casts Democrats in a bad light insults the intelligence of the reader... the source and his bias is obvious and the reader needs no protection from such a quote in a "Commentary" subsection. ] (]) 13:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
::Re "The proposed quote does more than simply deny Russian involvement" – If you read it carefully, it does not deny Russian involvement. Here it is for reference, " are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame. In my view this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity."

::Also note that it is not a quote of what he said, which was in Russian, but rather a translation. It differs from the translation given on the President of Russia webcite, although it essentially has the same or similar meaning. Here it is for reference, "They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully."
::--] (]) 15:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. Putin's comment could be more properly considered a comment, or reaction. Which actually makes it perfectly appropriate material for the "Commentary and Reaction" section, which is of course what this RfC is about. ] (]) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

== "Russian trolls' support for Trump" Section Biased ==

In this section, articles only from the Guardian and Daily Beast are cited. Both are well-known to be "progressive, liberal" sources of news, and to make things worse, the sources are unreliable. For example, source 44. Go there and read its claims that "RT" and "Sputnik" promoted "fake news" about an incident in Turkey. Now ACTUALLY GO READ THOSE ARTICLES ON RT AND SPUTNIK (they are still there), and the articles DO NOT claim that there was a 2nd coup attempt, but only say that there is speculation that a 2nd coup attempt may have occurred, and they specifically report that they asked a Turkish official what happened and that he denied a 2nd coup, and said it was just a security check. The article on RT DOES mention the protest, as well, in conjunction with what U.S. Government sources claim occurred, no one claims another coup occurred, only that there was speculation about it because of the 7,000 police forces that surrounded the base, and there is an open and on-going dispute about whether those police forces were there or not. The U.S. says "no", RT says "Yes", and the Turkish official appears to side with RT, claiming they were there but only doing a "security check". The numbers are also in dispute, whether it was 7,000 or fewer, but the problem here is that The Guardian and Daily Beast stories, used as "credible references" in this Wiki, are not credible because those particular stories claim that the RT article is one-sided and claims there was another coup atttempt, when it does not. It merely speculates that might have happened, but reports that Turkish officials deny it. The Guardian and Daily Beast also claim that, because the Pentagon said it didn't happen, then it factually did not happen. There are a number of high-profile cases of the Pentagon claiming something did not happen, or making statements that allude to something not having happened, when in fact it did happen. The Guardian and Daily Beast should be reporting that the Pentagon claims it was just a protest and did not happen, while Turkey and RT both are reporting the police did show up, and the facts are disputed. Just because you are a U.S. newspaper doesn't mean the U.S. Government always tells the truth (Iraq WMDs, claims that Iran and not Iraq gassed the Kurds in northern Iraq w/100% certaintly during Reagan's tenure, then flip-flopping and claiming it was Saddam w/100% certainty during W.'s tenure, etc., etc.).

==Bizarre title==

The article title implies the facts are established even though the allegations are presented without any evidence! Only on Wiki.....]

== Requested move 4 February 2017 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''no consensus''', pretty much for the same reasons as ]. <small>(])</small> ]] 18:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
----

] → {{no redirect|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?" ] (]) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::Note that the RfC is malformated as the issue is not presented in a neutral manner. You want to have your say - that's what your "support" below is for. The RfC itself should be strictly factual. Please strike and reword.] (]) 07:28, 5 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 ] or the ]. We should be exceptionally cautious about sourcing social science articles to claims originating from secret police agencies and add appropriate caveats when we do. ] (]) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - Again, is more in line with the tone of the article. ] (]) 16:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This has been discussed and rejected many times over, most recently less than a month ago ]. All editors who participated in that discussion should be notified that the discussion has been re-opened. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' The RS cited in the article present a fairly even opinion that may not be accurately represented by the article's current title. ] (]) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - per BlueSalix. ] (]) 16:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''' - Situation seems to have evolved since last move discussion and may support a move. ] (]) 17:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This is a dead horse that, as Rob says above, has been discussed and rejected many times over, including less than a month ago. Moreover, all of the editors who participated in that discussion must be notified. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::First, as noted in my OP, additional RS have published since the last move discussion which changes the situation considerably. WP is not a print encyclopedia, nor is it carved into a stone tablet. As the situation changes, we change. Second, while moves to POV-pushing titles have been proposed, a move to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia" has '''''never''''' been proposed. I would actually oppose the previous move suggestions. ] (]) 17:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I don't see any reliable sources in the last three weeks that show that "the situation has changed considerably" in the way you seek. , in fact. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::::You should probably look harder then. , , etc. You should, in fact, be concerned about ensuring articles are NPOV and accurate rather than policing WP articles to ensure they're "Rah rah! Team America!" as your compatriots, below, seem to be concerned about. ] (]) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::::: Please stop personally attacking editors, as you have done at least 3 times in this thread to 3 different editors. (Accusing other editors of acting in some sort of nefarious concert ("your compatriots"), baselessly accusing editors of pro-American bias, nonsensically comparing editors to adherents to the John Birch Society and Infowars - these are all things that fly in the face of common courtesy.).
::::: As to your links, they don't help your case as all. The study summarized in ''The Hill'' merely says that fake news may not have changed the result of the election. The article and the study do not conclude that interference didn't exist, or that the Russians weren't involved in it. Nor did it deal with the hacking affair. As for the opinion piece by Carden, the executive director of the "American Committee for East-West Accord," here's what's been said about the group: "Like several other analysts, however, ] voiced concern that the group’s potential positive role was compromised by some of its members' knee-jerk tendency to blame all tensions on the West while excusing the Kremlin’s and Vladimir Putin's actions" (). That kind of source is a very thin reed to base your argument on. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::''"baselessly accusing editors of pro-American bias"'' --> ''"anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions"''
::::::The fact you are claiming this is "baseless" - when its veracity is directly diff'ed (above) - is either a personal attack by you against me, or you've simply been blinded by ] waving in the wind. This coupled with the POV-entrenched, Americentric position you're taking across this set of networked articles - largely in support of newly churned and IP editors - has left your nic, "Neutrality," as something of a Machiavelian hoot. ] (]) 19:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::: OK. Continuing these personal attacks while refusing to respond substantively is, simply put, unproductive.
::::::: The bottom line is the reliable sources indicate that the Russians did interfere in the election. Experts (e.g., ], "the leading scholar of his generation, maybe the leading scholar, on post-Communist Russia") conclude that&mdash;while there's still a lot we don't know, including the particular aims of the Russians and whether it ultimately affected the outcome of the election&mdash;the Russians . ]<sup>]</sup> 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::No, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that a majority of RS on this 90-day old topic claim there was interference, and a large minority (all the sources that have recently been deleted from this article) claim there was not. WP is not a winner take all system. ] (]) 22:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::Notifying users of previous discussions is not required and may be a form of inappropriate ]. ] (]) 20:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:::That is certainly not the case. As the policy says, notifying "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" is an ], so long as the notices are sent without regard to opinion. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This has already been discussed and settled. The verifiability of the RS is very clear, and the intelligence community has, if anything, made even more clear that they stand by their evidence and published statements. That "agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging" does not indicate they are backing down or are any less certain. On the contrary. They have settled the matter, and they feel no need to continue kicking a dead horse, and that's exactly what this RfC is doing. It's absurd. <p>Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions, and without any good evidence. <p>This isn't a conspiracy theory (with conflicting opinions and no good evidence) where we have to couch the title in modifiers. This is a firmly settled matter, and until multiple RS find new evidence that totally upsets the apple cart, the current title is good enough. Editorial doubts should not be included in the title. That would violate NPOV. -- ] (]) 17:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::"Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions"
::That is nonsense, see the commentary and reaction secton. ] is an example] (]) 18:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::''"Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions"'' ... So the Stanford University and NYU studies, ], ], '']'', Wikileaks, the U.S.' foremost expert on Russian media at Duke University, etc. - all of which reject the conclusions - must be part of this wild conspiracy you think exists? LOL. Also, screaming "Anti-American! Anti-American!" - while it may be an argument in a ] debate - is not an argument in a WP move discussion. ] (]) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Point of fact - the Stanford University and NYU studies did NOT "cast doubt" on any conclusions. You are just pretending that they did. And you are also making personal attacks by comparing commentators to Bircher's, or for that matter accusing them of "screaming". (For the other ones, Greenwald, Wikileaks and Russia itself certainly do qualify as "anti-American". And Gessen also doesn't quite say what you claim she says) ] (]) 08:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The mainstream view is that the Russian interference with the election happened. 'Alleged' is a ] word best avoided when there is no credible doubt as to the veracity of situation. I agree with {{U|BU Rob13}} that editors who participated in the previous discussion should be notified that the discussion has been re-opened.- ]] 18:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::The view of the U.S. secret police services does not = the mainstream view. The mainstream view is the consensus view of reputable and neutral parties. At present, there is not a consensus view, due to the fact that Stanford University and NYU studies have questioned the U.S. secret police conclusions, as have mainstream journalists like ], ], '']'', Wikileaks, the U.S.' foremost expert on Russian media at Duke University, etc. Your position is based on dismissing Stanford, NYU, The Intercept, Duke University, ''The Nation'', ''Politico'', etc. as "not credible." Your distrust of academia and the mainstream media may be shared by ] or ], but not generally by experienced WP editors. ] (]) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:::"U.S. secret police services"? Seriously? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:::{{U|BlueSalix}}, the U.S. does not have a "secret police". That kind of rhetoric is not helpful in moving discussion forward and tends to discredit your entire argument.- ]] 19:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:::What the fuck are "secret police conclusions" and why do you keep raving on about'em? ] (]) 08:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::According to RS including ] ,] , ] and ] , the FBI is a "secret police" service. I know that kind of language doesn't jive with "Freedom! Apple Pie!" and so forth but please understand, not everyone who edits WP is a U.S. citizen committed to promoting the narrative of American utopianism like you and Neutrality seem to be.
::::We should be careful with articles that are sourced entirely to claims originating with secret police agencies like the FBI, KGB, ], and so forth. The perspectives of independent sources like mainstream media and academics, should be given discursive dominance. ] (]) 19:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::::First, those cherry-picked articles do not support your ridiculous claim that U.S. secret police services exist. Nice try though. As concerns your personal attack, I am not a person known for "promoting the narrative of American utopianism". On the contrary; I'm openly critical and suspicious of my government.- ]] 20:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' For full disclosure - new editor, long-time reader of this article, so don't know if my opinion counts. However, the argument that "only anti-American forces" question the conclusions, therefore questions about the conclusions should be dismissed as fringe - meanwhile it's been shown, as above, that those who question the conclusions include peer-reviewed studies, mainstream media, and such - I have trouble assuming that those opposing this move are really doing so in good faith. ] (]) 19:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:: ''Very'' new editor - a total of three edits from a brand new account. Welcome. Please tell exactly which "peer-reviewed study" concludes that Russian interference did not occur. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' While not being American, I do have to say that the sources provided give no definitive proof that Russia did anything physical to interfere with the election. Alleged would be much better as the current title gives a level of POV to the accusations. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Most reliable sources are treating "Russian interference" as an allegation. The various allegations may or may not be true. "Alleged" is a neutral term to describe such a situation, and it's used by many reliable sources. -] (]) 20:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::Yeah. That's just not true.] (]) 08:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::What's not true? That most reliable sources treat this as an allegation, or that "alleged" is a neutral term? -] (]) 09:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' We should not show greater certainty than mainstream media which routinely says that these are allegations with which American intelligence have a high degree of confidence. It is not in the same category as the findings of the 9/11 or Warren Commission where the authors expressed certainty which was reflected in mainstream reporting. So news media routinely say Oswald was a lone gunman or bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 without qualification or mention of the commissions that made the determination. Anyway be patient. In due course if conclusive evidence is presented we can move the article back. ] (]) 20:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The intelligence community, which has access to sources that journalists and others don't have, is convinced there were Russian efforts to interfere with the election. For journalists to complain that they didn't show us their evidence - well, of course they didn't! Telling us the sources of their information could affect national security as well as endanger the lives of sources. Nominator cites the Stanford study, but it does not deny or disprove that the Russians attempted to interfere with the election - it only concludes that one small aspect of the interference, the "fake news", did not affect the outcome. But the intelligence sources never claimed that Russian interference affected the outcome of the election, and neither does this article. The hacking, and the carefully timed public releases, remain on the record. To weaken this title with an "alleged" would do a disservice to our readers. --] (]) 20:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
**Can you point to the policy which says we should weight should be based on unpublished U.S. intelligence sources rather than reliable secondary sources? BTW I just provided the example of 9/11 where intelligence provided evidence. They also provided evidence against Saddam Hussein if you remember, although some of it was held back. ] (]) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
**Unless you've seen it or had it described to you, '''classified intelligence is simply not a source.''' Forget about "reliable", "primary", "secondary", "published" etc: it's not a ''source'' in any way shape or form. ] (]) 22:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
**{{re|MelanieN}} Read what you wrote: {{tq|The intelligence community is convinced there were Russian efforts to interfere with the election.}} This actually makes the case of move supporters, because US intelligence is convinced and other people (inside and outside the USA) are unconvinced. — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
***I am baffled by the argument from some here that we can't accept the assessment of the intelligence community (17 agencies in agreement as I recall) unless they show us their sources - presumably so that we can make our own (WP:OR?) assessment of whether we find the information credible or not. That is NOT how our Reliable Source guideline works. We define a source as Reliable if it is published and if the publisher/source has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". We accept reports from "reliable" media even though they virtually never show us their original sources (such as a transcript of the interview) and often use anonymous sources. We accept citations from a source like a news organization if the organization meets the RS standard - meaning it has a reputation, based on its overall track record, for checking facts and providing mostly accurate information. I contend that exact same standard applies to the intelligence agencies of the United States (and please don't belabor the point that they made a mistake a decade or two ago; even the NYT makes mistakes occasionally.) In addition to their classified briefings which we cannot see or cite, they have published an unclassified summary of what they have found and what they conclude. IMO that is a Reliable Source by Misplaced Pages's definition and should not be rejected on the grounds that they (for obvious reasons) don't tell us exactly what information they got from exactly what source. --] (]) 20:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
****The "unclassified summary" itself has had its validity questioned by RS media including ], ] and others. I understand, ], if you aren't aware of this fact. It was included in the article, however, Malek declared Glenn Greenwald (The Intercept) and others "Anti-American" and then deleted all the sources, therefore, a lot of people haven't seen these other RS. ] (]) 21:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
****Statements—either declassified, leaked or public—by officials of any govt (yes, that includes US officials) are ] sources and not ]. '''This is POLICY'''. There is no ambiguity here. ] (]) 12:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per TFD. The vast majority of (non-opinion) reliable sources are simply relaying the claims of the US government, with a few saying point-blank that it's "alleged" (major outlets like CNN) and a few others insinuating it's more than alleged. Reportage can be construed as "endorsement", but doing so would constitute OR. Then there are opinion/analysis sources. The vast majority of these sources simply critique or otherwise evaluate existing ''claims'', with a few going further and attempting to establish the truth positively (did Russia actually do it?). Of those that seek to establish the truth positively, most think it's ''likely'' that Russia did do it. But quality sources that seek to establish the truth positively are few in number. But even if that were not the case, saying something is credible or likely does not mean it's not "alleged" . Finally there's Crowdstrike, US intel, the Russian govt and Wikileaks. All of these are materially-involved WP:PRIMARY sources. What they say is completely irrelevant to this RfC. Until the preponderance of ''RS'' unequivocally state that Russia was responsible (as proven fact), Russian culpability will remain alleged, however credibly. ] (]) 22:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' 1. Already had serveral long discussions on this. 2. WP:RS do not use allege. 3. This title is non-wp:n. US intel agencies came to the conclusion that Russia interfered and stated it. This title undermines that fact and minimizes that reality. 4. I had a move request closed by ] because the discussion was too soon before pervious conversations. I am unsure why this does not follow suit.] (]) 22:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:: {{tq|"WP:RS do not use allege.}}. That's simply . {{tq|"US intel agencies came to the conclusion that Russia interfered and stated it. This title undermines that fact and minimizes that reality."}} That's actually the definition of alleged. Please read ]. Also remember that there is such a thing as a "credible allegation". ] (]) 23:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:: {{tq|"This title is non-wp:n. US intel agencies came to the conclusion that Russia interfered and stated it. This title undermines that fact and minimizes that reality."}}: This is really the most disturbing aspect of this discussion - that a significant number of Misplaced Pages editors are declaring that public statements of US intelligence agencies must be treated as fact. I cannot imagine us even contemplating treating the spy agencies of any other country that way. What's next? Are we going to declare positions of the FSB as absolute truth? We go by reliable sources, and intelligence agencies are reliable sources only for their own opinions. -] (]) 03:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::The supposed ''WP:RS'' discovered via Google search link above has some issues:
:::# even the text of this Fox News report is consistent with other WP:RS such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Politico reporting on this issue.
:::# pertains to Russian hackers Evgeniy Bogachev and Aleksey Belan who were involved in schemes not related to this topic. In the entire article "alleged" is used once, but in-depth analysis (or reporting) about topic related US intelligence reports is not in this article. So, first, this is not significant coverage that supports placing "alleged" in this title. Second, we don't know the circumstances behind this reporter not reporting details about topic related Russian hacks.
:::# is saying this is "alleged Russian hacking" and "Trump has dismissed intelligence reports from both the CIA and FBI that claim Russia meddled in the election to help Trump defeat his opponent" -- but no WP:RS supports his opinion up to this date.
:::# This is a blog post.
:::# This also says "US intelligence officials have said that they are confident Russia was behind the US election hacks , which could have played a role in Trump’s defeat over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton." Although the headline says "alleged" I don't see anything in this article that supports their use of this word in the title. I am guessing it is merely a headline grabber (click bate). It covers diplomat expulsions, sanctions, and so on.
:::It appears the sources recount US intelligence agencies and US security agencies findings - but are unable to show support for meager use of the word "alleged" - such as one instance in an article. I don't think this would equal significant coverage in a relevant discussion. Hopefully this is one of those relevant discussions. ] (]) 18:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This has been given ample recent consideration and it feels disruptive to ask editors to come back each time that the same thing is proposed for fear that it will appear to have consensus when the highly motivated editors on one side jump out of the woodwork for another go-round. The Russian interference is a fact that's been confirmed by every government agency that's reviewed '''all''' the evidence. And academic studies or polls of public opinion have nothing to do with WP sourcing the RS consensus as to the facts. ]] 03:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::When you write "'''all''' the evidence," I presume you mean classified evidence as well. Is that correct? -] (]) 06:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::This is the third !vote based on ''unspecified classified'' "evidence" (inherently unsourceable) and the conclusions of US intel (not RS). These !votes can't be considered valid because they are asking us to flagrantly violate ]. ] (]) 10:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This has been litigated to death and there is just no support in sources for this title. Furthermore, the issue has been discussed repeatedly and this is bordering on (intertemporal) ]. Finally, the RfC itself violates guidelines as it is not properly formatted and it is not worded neutrally. Some editors just need to learn how to ].] (]) 07:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::(And did I ever mentioned that only six month old and older accounts should be allowed to !vote in controversial RfCs?)] (]) 07:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Is this policy or just a recommendation? Also, bringing the same/similar issue on the same page is NOT ]. ] (]) 10:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. How many times do we have to go through this? A slightly different version ("Intelligence reports" of Russian interference instead of "Allegations") of the proposed title was proposed by JFG on and rejected. Another slightly different version ("Allegations of" instead of "Alleged") was proposed by JFG on and rejected. The article is not based solely "… on official , U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period …", but also by and in numerous other sources long before US agencies ever issued any statements. None of any of them have been retracted, AFAIK. This dead horse has been flogged so many times it’s a pile of mush by the side of the road. ] (]) 12:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::In the first few weeks of this story, there was a rather strong polarization in sources, some of them defending the agencies' assessment as unassailable, some of them expressing doubt on various grounds (technology, politics or secrecy), and both sides said "hey, proof will come out soon enough" as Obama ordered a report to settle any doubts. Since that report came out two shifts happened: the "pro" sources started to consistently qualify the allegations, and the "contra" sources became much more assertive in expressing their skepticism. Therefore, the balance of sources today has shifted universally towards calling those allegations what they are: allegations, accusations, innuendo, inferences, whatever you want to call it, they are not unattackable facts. A rename is ever more justified, and we can't accept the "dead horse" argument without looking at how coverage of the story has evolved. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - If this is over, shall moratorium be proposed? ] (]) 12:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
** No, because it's possible that facts about the story may emerge, which allow to state it actually happened or was a hoax or error. ] (]) 13:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
***Are you saying the hacking was a hoax or error? ] (]) 17:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' reliable sources have been covering this for months until recently. In unison they report 17 intelligence agencies, the FBI, and Homeland Security say the hacking by Russians did occur. The agencies also ultimately say that there was a purpose behind these activities. The purpose or intent was to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. It is pretty clear this <u>did occur</u> and the Russians intended to influence the elections.

:I think saying that US intelligence and law enforcement agencies are not to be believed appears to indicate some wide spread conspiracy is afoot - which cannot be credible - even on its face. I also think, saying US agencies are not believable is also a good excuse for discounting WP:RS, which is a foundation for WP:GNG and our content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V.

:Also, for those who noticed it - please excuse my edit on the main space page. I didn't realize this RFC is exactly related to that edit, and probably not appropriate at this time, so I self-reverted. Don't need admins admonishing me due to my bad timing. ---] (]) 17:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Steve Quinn}}The RfC is only about moving the article (AGAIN), so I just removed one of the numerous mentions of "alleged". The hacking itself has been established to have taken place, I think, just not who's responsible, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. ] (]) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Steve Quinn}} You make a very good argument for inclusion of the word "alleged." As you say, reliable sources report that US intelligence agencies have alleged Russia interfered in the US elections. Going from the fact that US intelligence agencies have made those allegations to a statement that those claims are correct would, however, be ]. You can have a personal view on whether or not the CIA, the FSB or any other intelligence agency in the world is trustworthy on any given issue, but unless reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) on the whole state something as a fact, we cannot do so here on Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|Thucydides411}} please do not mischaracterize my post (what I said), and please do not do this again. This is considered disruptive editing and contravenes ]. I am not here to defend against mischaracterizatizing my words. Please do not be presumptuous enough to tell me what what I mean either. Please be attentive to the Arbcom DS restrictions template above This is fair warning. ] (]) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Steve Quinn}} I don't see how you read a personal attack into anything that I wrote. I addressed your argument, not your person. You actually did make a very good argument for including the word "alleged." It's simply that after laying out the reasons why "alleged" is appropriate, you came to the opposite conclusion. US intelligence agencies have alleged Russian hacking, as you laid out above. But you're now making the astounding argument that the FBI and CIA are reliable sources, which would be a really unbelievable position for Misplaced Pages to take. -] (]) 21:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Steve Quinn}} Accusing another editor of a personal attack, when no such attack occurred, is itself a personal attack and a violation of DS. I suggest you either provide a diff for your allegation or strike it before you're blocked. ] (]) 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Thucydides411}} and {{u|BlueSalix}} OK. Let's drop this for now. I attribute it to a misunderstanding (or miscommunication). ---] (]) 22:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Steve Quinn}} These "17 agencies" are neither independent nor ]. We don't know what exactly their conclusions are based on, besides the findings already made public. Some of the public findings have been heavily criticized within the mainstream and by experts. Lots of these sources have been deleted recently, so you may need to check google or the page history to access them: but they are indeed numerous. As you say, the media has mainly been "covering" what US officials have been saying. This probably means that most sources agree that the allegations are newsworthy and credible, but coverage does not equal endorsement. Finally, it is a pretty orwellian to equate skepticism with conspiracism. A ] can be (note that this "bulletproof" evidence was also ''classified'' — now we see it for what it is), and no "conspirancy theory" is necesserary to account for this fact. PS: Your list of sources above is incomplete. It is indisputable that some RS (no, not TheBlaze) have used "alleged". But this is not the only point. The other points: is that it is WP:OR to interpret uncritical coverage ("officials say") with endorsement; governments (and even hired security firms) are WP:PRIMARY sources with conflicts of interest; "classified intelligence" is not a source. The same arguments could have been used in 2003 to pummel readers with how factual and not-at-all-alleged the WMD intelligence was. That's not to say that the intel community's conclusions are completely fabricated this time, just that proper attribution is at the very least warranted. ] (]) 19:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
{{hat|Hatting side discussion about the Iraq war. Sorry, but this thread is already almost too long to follow. --] (]) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)}}
:::Straw man. Red herring. Please review ]. This is not a video game. The matter is settled until, as TFD says, Putin comes clean and admits it was all an elaborate hoax. Haha Good one. ]] 19:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Ha ha. La la. Boing boing. Tetris. ] (]) 00:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} It is clear, even from the source you cited, that Congress concluded the Bush administration overstated the value of that report. There was nothing wrong with the report - it stated facts (or assessments) garnered by intelligence agencies. I have to wonder if you read this yourself - because it does not support your argument? Anyway, you're citing one intelligence report from years ago to refute (now) that 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland security, and the FBI are all in agreement - the Russians are behind the hacks intended to influence the 2016 US elections. Huh? What? O.K.
::::<s>It would make sense</s> if there was a blunder <s>and that</s> some of these agencies would step forward and cry foul or disagree. But that hasn't happened. There are also some details that have been revealed such as the behavior patterns of these Russian military hackers, which are recognizable. We haven't been left totally left in the dark, as we were when the Bush surrogates were on all the political talk shows overstating the findings of the above mentioned report and other reports. Unfortunately they roped in General Powell who unwittingly presented their case to the UN.
::::Saying these agencies are not independent and not R.S. seems like playing word games. Yes, it is true they are not independent for ''our sourcing purposes'', but each agency makes independent assessments in the real world. How much verification do you suppose has happened between 17 agencies, Homeland Security, and the FBI? This could be a new world's record on verification and coming to the same conclusion.
::::Saying they are not are reliable sources is OK for Misplaced Pages purposes, as we tend to go for secondary sources. But there is no evidence to impugn the integrity of these numerous agencies - there is nothing to support it. So what we actually have is reliable sources reporting on information released by reliable sources (reliable agencies). In a manner of speaking we get two for the price of one - and that is a good deal.
::::Again, I don't know why you cited this source - it refutes what you are trying to claim. It says the Bush administration's spin did not agree with the actual report. There was nothing wrong with the report - the Bush Administration misused in the public forum. Classified information is a source - although we don't use it on Misplaced Pages - we use secondary sources that summarize available formerly classified information, and this seems to be more word games.
::::Also, I would like to see which "''public findings have been heavily criticized within the mainstream and by expert''s", even though you implore me to go on a Google quest. I appreciate the offer, but I have been covering this since the DNC was first reported hacked last year. I am not seeing heavy criticism within the mainstream and by experts" In fact, just the opposite.
::::Expert after expert and news article after news article has been saying "Russian hackers, Russian hackers, Russian hackers...to infinitude" from then until now. I love it when editors make disagreeing sweeping claims, as if I don't know what I am talking about. Also, my assessment above is quite accurate, but I don't know why you discuss it here. ] (]) 20:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::I mentioned Iraq as an aside, but if you insist...
::::::*{{tq|"There was nothing wrong with the report"}} - ''''. The report was titled "''Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction''."
::::::*{{tq| "Anyway, you're citing one intelligence report from years ago to refute (now) that 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland security, and the FBI are all in agreement"}} - Yes, <s>] would contribute to a single ''Intelligence Community Assessment'', in varying degrees (I'm sure the DEA and the Coast Guard had a lot of input). Same deal with '']''.</s> The ODNI represents 17 agencies, not all of which participated in the drafting of the hacking "assessment" (looks like just the NSA, FBI and CIA did). 10 separate agencies ''participated'' in the drafting of the 2002 NIE. I'm ''not'' using the declassified 2002 NIE to "refute" the published 2017 ICA. I ''am'' using it to refute the strange arguments I'm seeing on this page.
::::::*{{tq|"Saying these agencies are not independent and not R.S. seems like playing word games"}} - It's an simple fact, not a "word game".
::::::*{{tq|"Classified information is a source}} - ... for those who who've seen it. Neither you, me, NYT or anyone else without security clearance have seen it. We know absolutely nothing substantive about it, not even second, third or fourth hand. It's a void. Is this really so difficult to understand?
::::::*{{tq|"information released by reliable sources (reliable agencies)"}} - Err... ]. Not seeing anything about "reliable agencies". Are you serious?
::::::*{{tq|"It says the Bush administration's spin did not agree with the actual report."}} - That's one of the point I'm making: when officials say they have "classified evidence" tucked away that allegedly proves their ''public'' conclusions, they might be deluding themselves and/or the public.
::::::*{{tq|"Russian hackers, Russian hackers, Russian hackers"}} - It may ''sound'' like that, but it's commonly prefaced with "officials say". This is NOT a minor point.
::::::OK, more than enough. ] (]) 23:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::''"Also, I would like to see which "''public findings have been heavily criticized within the mainstream and by expert''s"'' -- If you look at the material that was "challenged" by Marek you'll see exactly which public findings have been criticized by mainstream media and experts. Our article doesn't currently contain that content (The Nation, The Monitor, Stanford, etc.), though, as it was challenged by process of deletion. ] (]) 22:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::*The major point is the Bush Administration filled in the blanks on that report. What I meant by "nothing wrong with the report" is that it was what it was and not more than that. It gave an accurate assessment whatever was there. It didn't overstate any conclusions - it didn't overstate lack of human intelligence, it didn't say Iraq was directly responsible for the Anthrax attack, it didn't say Hussein was making rockets out of aluminum tubes, it didn't say Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction, it didn't give a definitive conclusion there was an Iraqi and Al Queda connection.

:::::::They reported what was in front of them. Of course they felt rushed - they needed to quickly assess what the "enemy" had. You are not even mentioning that. It is not black and white, cut and dried. The NIE report was flawed in the sense there wasn't enough time and flawed in the sense there were gaps in the intelligence - but through no fault of the agents on the ground.

:::::::It was not flawed in reporting the information they actually had in hand. That is the difference here. The main point is the Bush Administration used an accurate assessment at the time, with all its gaps and shortcomings, and spun it like this was "bulletproof". The NIE report in no way claimed to be bulletproof or have bulletproof conclusions. <u>It was not a misleading report</u>. This is what I meant about "nothing wrong with the report".

:::::::I am guessing that every NIE report at any time on any day can be considered "flawed" in the way you have tried to describe it. There will never be any time or any day when all the possible information there is to know about a situation is in hand - because time did not allow it. If the agents on the ground had 25 years or 100 years to gather all possible information then maybe it would no longer be "flawed". But then it would be of no use, because the circumstances, incidents, or war footing for which the information was required are long past.

:::::::As an aside, these times are not like that. How many cybersecurity experts and espionage agents were and are working on this problem within 17 intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and private entities or contractors? I would guess thousands, because it seems to have that kind of priority. I have to say they probably have put together a complete enough and accurate enough picture - enough to kick Russian diplomats out of the country and apply more sanctions.

:::::::And journalists have sources that are accessible to them, especially veteran journalists. They have done a good job of ferreting out the truth for quite a long time and very capable of it. If the mainstream press detected BS they would say so. They have had no problem detecting and reporting inconsistencies over these past two weeks and a half weeks. So, I think the same principles apply to this topic. The press is consistent in their reporting. Why would this topic be any different? ----] (]) 06:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I am amazed at the audacity of a public figure trying to pass-off that report of 15 years ago, when they had much less technology, much less monitoring capability, and didn't have the all-seeing all-knowing all-plugged-in-NSA that we have today --- and equate that with this report garnered by 17 ''state of the art'' intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and private entities. This is worse than comparing apples to oranges. There is no there, there. ---] (]) 07:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Talk about "audacity"....
:::::::::*{{tq|"The major point is the Bush Administration filled in the blanks on that report."}} Yes that's true, and? "''The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research also disagreed with the intelligence community's assertions that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. '''The CIA's 25-page unclassified summary''' of the NIE released in 2002 did not contain the State or Energy Departments' dissent.'''" That's an argument for trusting officials when they say they have "slam dunk" intelligence ''but'' won't show a significant part of it?
:::::::::*{{tq|"it (NIE) didn't say Hussein was making rockets out of aluminum tubes"}} Yeah, '''it said he was making NUKES out of them''': "Most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors—as well as Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools—provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program." The '''rockets theory was a dissenting word of caution from the DoE (who still agreed Saddam was building nukes)!''' (this was a serious report for internal use, so naturally there was a dissenting opinion from the DoE. Contrast with unclassified ODNI assessment on hacking, which is brochure, much like the CIA/]'s summary of the 2002 NIE. Brochures don't contain significant dissenting opinions.
:::::::::*{{tq|"it (NIE) didn't say Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction"}} You appear to have '''not read the title and the first paragraph''' of the . This is a shockingly ignorant statement.
:::::::::*{{tq|"I am guessing that every NIE report at any time on any day can be considered "flawed" in the way you have tried to describe it."}}. Take it up with the ]—I've "tried" nothing. Or you can try this this summary from the ] instead: '''Why are you guessing anything'''? Again, pretty shocking.
:::::::::*{{tq|"17 intelligence agencies" (blamed Russia for hacking)}} Is 17 a magic number or something? The 2002 classsified NSE on Iraq's WMD was prepared by 10 different agencies. though that report was classified. The of the same report was released by the ] (also head of CIA before 2005), who oversaw in the intel community as a whole.
:::::::::*{{tq|"The press is consistent in their reporting."}} Are you completely unaware of the nature of media coverage in runup to the Iraq war? Yes, the national press consistently report what the nation's "officials say" with little criticism, creating a kind of "truthiness". '''But at least the press properly ''attributes'' the claims.'''
:::::::::The ''real'' difference between '02 and today is that in 2002 there was a pressing need to manufacture a ''causus belli'' for an imminent war. There is no ''equally'' compelling reason for the CIA, the administration etc to lie about the hacks. While that still does not make spies reliable sources, this would have at least been a persuasive argument. ] (]) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::"'''''Is 17 a magic number or something?'''''" The represents 16 members of the . 17 may be a typo or someone added the ODNI as representing itself, as well. Does anyone know? ] (]) 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::* The actually carries the ''seals'' of 3 agencies: CIA, NSA, FBI (or "not all participated" as Time ) The ICA ''represents''/''oversees'' ] By contrast, 10 agencies ''participated'' in the drafting of the 2002 NIE on Iraq's WMD. ] (]) 18:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Oh, OK, now I get your argument: Since not all members represented by the DNI were involved in the drafting of the document, it carries less weight than the one drafted in 2002 (as long as we're nitpicking, that was a Reuters news report picked up by Time and others). When you're contemplating military action in Iraq, you would probably want input from all branches of the Armed Forces as well as from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the DIA in addition to "just" the CIA, NSA, FBI, so there's your 10 (just guessing, didn't look this up). When you are investigating specific cyber attacks or disinformation campaigns, what kind of information could you expect from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or Marine Corps Intelligence, for example? (Rhetorical question.) ] (]) 21:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yeah I brought up the same point earlier, though in the context of an incorrect statement, now corrected. I was just tired of hearing that ''this time'' we have a whopping 17 agencies (world record!?) so it must be true. The number does not matter, and 17 is a ridiculous exaggeration in any case. What does matter is that a 94 page ''National Security Estimate''—written for ''internal use'' and containing dissenting opinions—was an infinitely more serious document than the ODNI's 14 page "assessment" brochure. This is the point Seymour Hersh made in his interview. The only thing the brochure has going for it is that there's not ''that much'' to be gained from falsely incriminating the GRU in the hacking. ] (]) 22:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{u|Guccisamsclub}} There was one caveat that I avoided saying and that you correctly brought up. The pre-Iraq invasion press coverage was disgraceful. I think all U.S. mainstream news outlets just echoed what they were fed by any officials connected to the Bush Administration. I think during the early war years, the coverage was equally deplorable, still echoing the Administration's view.

::::::::::::::::The press has done a huge mea culpa since that time. So, most of the time the press does indeed act like the fourth estate. But historically, during times of war, they put a muzzle on their investigative reporting and critical assessments of Government entities. This has occurred during war time, at least since WWI. I don't know about before that.

::::::::::::::::As an aside, I'll try to verify if intelligence agencies were actually saying the aluminum tubes were intended for building nukes for myself. I was sure their use was inconclusive pertaining to intelligence assessments. Anyway, we should probably drop discussing this in this thread any longer - it seems off topic at this point. But I might visit your talk page to continue this discussion (evil laugh!), because this is very interesting - if that is OK with you. ] (])
{{hab}}
*'''Oppose'''. Based on coverage in WP:RS, the correct title is 2016 United States election interference by Russia. This is not something that is "alleged", and a title containing the word "alleged" would be just as blatantly POV as a title claiming climate change is "alleged". --] (]) 18:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' High-quality sources attribute the claim to the US government or government agencies, we should follow their lead. ''Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia'' is a reasonable approximation of '"US Government alleges Russian interference in 2016 US election." Allegations by non-government agents (without access to the full intelligence) are speculation and should be treated as speculation – good enough for attributed opinion, not for article titles. ] (]) 01:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' like ] - ] (]) 15:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

*'''Support''' , , and write ''alleged Russian interference''. Wiki policy is to follow the reliable sources, not to inject our personal opinions on the subject. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 04:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
::The headline of the CNN article says ,"Senate probe into election hacking to review possible links between Russia, campaigns", i.e., the article is about alleged links between Russia and Trump campaign staffers. The article starts off with "The Senate Intelligence Committee's review of Russian meddling in the 2016 election ...". Nothing alleged there. PS.: Is your vote in support of the requested Feb 4 move or the hatted request to postpone the move? ] (]) 09:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
::: riiight ... here's a quote from that CNN source: "'''joint statement that the investigation into <u>alleged</u> Russian interference in the election also will focus on Russian cyberactivity and "active measures" against the US.'''". ] (]) 15:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
::::And another quote: "Burr and Warner said the committee will hold hearings examining Russian intelligence activity ..." Aaand we've arrived back at the discussion in the first and second move RfC about whether the title is more neutral with or without "alleged"/"allegation" in it. ] (]) 21:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::The quote I gave shows that CNN did indeed describe the interference as "alleged", contrary to what you claimed CNN said. What exactly does ''your'' quote show? ] (]) 22:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::: I believe his/her point is that anyone can use your method and find the exact opposite. Here is another example from the CNN article you linked: "'''review <u>of Russian meddling</u> in the 2016 election will include a look at any intelligence...'''" There is no "alleged". Your approached is really very superficial and can't be applied in any definitive sense. ] (]) 01:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Editor said "alleged interference" was not used by CNN, and I corrected them. Their alternative quote basically demonstrates that CNN did not want to overuse "alleged" in reporting on various govt investigations whose ''stated'' goal is to probe real (not alleged russian meddling). Interjecting with "allegedly" too much may look like ''interrupting'' the sources or putting words into their mouth. I don't think it proves the negative, since the attribution to the committee is still there: there is no declaration ''by CNN'' that Russians did it, ''quite the opposite''. You can debate exactly how much weight should be given to this finding, but it's clearly greater than zero. ] (]) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': If editors think "allegations of" is too negative somehow (I don't), we could use "claims of". What we shouldn't do is substitute a kind of truthiness for a careful reading of the sources. It may appear to editors on an EL wiki that, regardless of topic, it is inherently mainstream, neutral and respectable to sympathize with the US government while criticizing its enemies (to a greater or lesser ''degree''). It is in fact reasonable to ''expect'' that reliable sources—particularly the major news outlets we are dealing with here—will ''tend'' to conform to this rule. If most RS' sounded like ''Democracy Now'', the current US govt would obviously cease to exist (every state ''requires'' consent). BUT this expectation/prejudice, however reasonable, has ''nothing to with the policies of this site''. The correct approach in every individual case is to read off the bare facts and opinions from sources line by line and not go one inch beyond that by synthesizing or postulating a metanarrative. Here, this approach plainly leads to the conclusion that the sources are overwhelmingly ''reporting''—with clear and abundant attribution—the fact that two WP:PRIMARY sources (Crowdstrike contractor and the government, by virtue of being involved parties very close to the underlying action) are saying that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking. It may be argued that the ''largely uncritical'' reporting of these claims by the news media constitutes an implicit endorsement, but this is plainly an unverifiable OR/SYNTH conclusion. It is therefore a clear violation of WP:V to drop the attribution and state the claims about Russian culpability in ''wikipedia's voice''. ] (]) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
::This has nothing to do with geography. You could live in an igloo in Siberia, for all that matters -- the world knows that there was Russian interference. Who doesn't know that? Everybody knows that. How do we know everyone knows? Because they say so. Of course the Russians know, and they're not English language. Everybody knows -- that's what RS say 96.5%. ]] 03:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Everybody knows that.}} No. Show me one person who believes this and I'll show you two won don't. This assertion is ] at best, hallucination at worst. — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Where do you get off making presumptions about what most Russians believe? Ever been there, read the local papers or talked to Russians? I'm guessing answer's "no" to all three, for all intents and purposes. When the Russian media pronounce judgement, they usually say either that the allegations are baseless or that there is a propaganda and intelligence war being waged against Russia. Most Russians agree with their media on this point to a greater or lesser degree, to the extent they know at all about it or care. They are not that different from the Americans, or anyone else. ] (]) 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Dead horses are dead and it's way too soon to try to get ] to jolt this one back to life. Very disrespectful that this discussion has been opened again so soon. ] (]) 04:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

===Move to Suspend Move Discussion and Restart Later===
{{hat|This suggestion didn't go anywhere. Hatting. --] (]) 15:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)}}
The article in its current form - after 6,000 bytes of sources and material from Stanford University, Duke University, The Nation, etc. were deleted - doesn't support a move. As it is, all new !votes are !votes on the article in its current form, not the article in the form in which it existed when the move request was opened. I recommend, as OP, suspending the discussion until such time as the purged sources can be restored and the article rebuilt. ] (]) 22:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If I were !voting on the article in its current form I, too, would vote "Oppose". ] (]) 22:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
**Nice try, but I believe the majority here would consider ''any'' attempt to beat the dead horse by starting ''yet another'' move discussion to be highly disruptive, and that the correct course of action would be to immediately close such a discussion based on the consensus on this talk page and the previous discussions we had. This issue has been settled after extensive debate, and we cannot rehash the same debate over and over and over again, every week, just because some editors won't accept the consensus. --] (]) 22:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
** I agree with Tataral. This is pretty obvious gamesmanship. The consensus has been settled, after extensive debate. We cannot and should not have a ]" here. That would be a huge waste of everybody's time. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::You need to familiarize yourself with the difference between "consensus" and "majority voting". There is no consensus in this Move - which is amazing considering the article was completely restructured to purge 9 different sources after the Move was opened. In its current form even I - the OP - can't support the move. There's gamesmanship going on but it's not from me. ] (]) 22:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
{{hab}}
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

==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 ], ] and the ] by ]. 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. ] (]) 21:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:Update ] 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? ] (]) 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Read the template - removed material is challenged material ---] (]) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the clarification. ] (]) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::No problem. So let's discuss this and see what we can come up with. ] (]) 21:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::I rescind my offer. This is out of control. See this and see below. ---] (])
:::::::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. ] (]) 21:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I'm speechless --- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{U|BlueSalix}}, 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 and , and then . 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 is not only incorrect but also very uncollegial. ] (]) 21:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::That's not the case at all, ]. 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. ] (]) 21:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

::{{re|Drmies}} I was wondering how you felt about the collegiality of . Thanks. -] (]) 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 ] - 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.] (]) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

::::Actually, I've made exactly on the Stanford fake news study. But that's not what I'm asking {{u|Drmies}} about here. Since they mentioned collegiality, I'm asking what they think about the collegiality you've shown in comments like , or indeed your comment directly above. This isn't "some technicality" - it's a basic question of whether editors behave civilly. -] (]) 19:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::Actually, Thucydides 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. ]] 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 ]. 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? ] (]) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Omitted''' as OP ] (]) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Restored''' by me as a POINTy removal. Discussion here in search of consensus can continue. --] (]) 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. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 08:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''].] (]) 08:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Restore'''Failing 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.] (]) 10:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
* The section as written is undue because instead of summarizing who said what it uses the ] 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. ] (]) 17:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

===Counter-challenge of Malek's Removal of Sourced Material===
Should Malek's massive removal of content source to ], ], ], ], 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.‎ ] (]) 21:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Revert and Restore''' - All material is topical and sourced to RS. ] (]) 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 ]Y move here - and as ] pointed out above, it is extremely disruptive. --] (]) 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: (], ]): 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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? --] (]) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Per {{u|MelanieN}} - 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.---] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::::: Please ]. You've made a continuous series of personal attacks over the past few days, of which this is the latest. Stop. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

*Volunteer Marek's edits clearly improved the article. --] (]) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
::How? Beyond ]? ] (]) 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.] (]) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
*The material should be '''restored''' ] (]) 22:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Why? Beyond ]? ] (]) 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. ---] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Who are you talking to? ] (]) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Following this by {{u|SPECIFICO}}, 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 ] of this article. -] (]) 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).] (]) 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. --] (]) 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?] (]) 10:19, 10 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 , , the , , and this . The material is challenged however on the grounds of ] and ]: 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, {{tq|''"...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 ] 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. -] (]) 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).] (]) 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
:Agree entirely. Augment the study with the tertiary sources to establish relevance within the article. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages policy.] (]) 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.]] 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

::{{reply to|SPECIFICO}} I linked to articles about the study written by the , , the , , and this . Is that what you meant by {{tq|"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. -] (]) 02:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
::::], 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'''".] (]) 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. ]] 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? -] (]) 03:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::This "study" hasn't even been published. Aim higher! ]] 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 {{u|SPECIFICO}} 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. -] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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.] (]) 05:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus. ]] 04:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::UNDUE. COATRACK. SPS. SYNTH. ]] 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.] (]) 05:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
::VM <s>& SPC</s> 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. ] (]) 09:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Thank you.] (]) 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. -] (]) 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Darouet}}: Just for the record: One of the five sources you mentioned () 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"? ] (]) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Volunteer Marek|Guccisamsclub|Thucydides411}} thanks for your notes - I'm quite busy until late tomorrow - sorry, I apologize about that :/ {{ping|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} 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. -] (]) 17:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

<s>The study belongs in the article.</s> ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
::<small>{{u|Snooganssnoogans}} I struck your above edit, since you indicated it wasn't relevant. Revert if I overstepped. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
*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.- ]] 20:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
*I agree with MrX. This is ]-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). ]<sup>]</sup> 23:09, 6 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 ""? 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. ] (]) 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. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 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 -- ] -- 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. ]] 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. -] (]) 20:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

== Binney and McGovern's comments on James Clapper ==

As part of reactions from the intelligence community, the article cites former NSA high-ranking member Binney and former CIA analyst McGovern as saying (via the ''Baltimore Sun''), among other things:
{{talkquote| Binney and McGovern wrote that given Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's false testimony to Congress over ], and his involvement in building the ] case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking are warranted. }}
{{u|SPECIFICO}} recently deleted this sentence as a "BLP smear" against Clapper. I reverted him mentioning that the accusation was properly attributed and grounded in facts. Specifico then reverted again, saying {{tq|BLP Smear unless it has been adjudicated in a court of law. If so, please show me and I will restore it.}} I respectfully argue that this counter-reversion is unwarranted because:
# James Clapper is a ] and his ] is a matter of public record, not a baseless allegation;
# By counter-reverting my revert of their first removal, {{u|SPECIFICO}} violated the DS/1RR restrictions in force;
# The exception to 1RR rule for egregious BLP violations does not apply here, by virtue of point 1;
# This attributed commentary was longstanding in the article, and it doesn't matter that Specifico may ];
# The commentary is relevant to the article's subject matter, given the prominence of Clapper's assertions in the intelligence reports about Russian interference (saying in essence "Trust my word because I can't show you proof");
# If there is a novel standard in Misplaced Pages that on-record false testimony by public figures should be "adjudicated in a court of law" before inclusion in the encyclopedia, I'm not aware of it yet, and will gladly argue the case at ].
Accordingly, I urge {{u|SPECIFICO}} to immediately restore the erased text (which I can't do lest I violate 1RR too). In case Specifico or other editors still want this part removed, we can have a proper debate. — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
:I see that {{u|Thucydides411}} has restored the text. Thanks! — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}Alert! This text is not worded to state "opinion" or "commentary". Edit warring. BLP violation. ]] 13:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

:I've reverted my initial self-revert upon reflection: in my opinion, this does seem like a violation of BLP. The final imputation presented is that scepticism of his claims are warranted – yet, that is presented as a fact. It is the opinion of Binney and McGover, and we should indicate that.
:{{ping|JFG}} is there a way that this can perhaps be reworded as to clarify that this is the opinion of those two authors? I'd personally go for something a long the lines of "In the opinions of X and Y, expressed in ''(writing)''" – but maybe articulated a little bit better. I just think as it stood it sounded as though we were relaying facts, not opinions, and that doesn't sit well with me re the BLP subject. Thoughts? —]<font color="#FF9F00">☆</font>] 14:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
::This seems to be synthesis and UNDUE. This also seems to be cherry picking. Hence, I agree the above is an unwarranted BLP smear. Also, it seems obvious that Binney and McGovern are promulgating minority or fringe views. I think we need to dispense with this whole paragraph as UNDUE - imho. I do not see them as any kind of authority worth discussing or echoing in this Misplaced Pages article, based on this paragraph. I respect what Binney did as a whistleblower, but I think what happened to him seems to have given him cause for having a bias. ---] (]) 15:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
:::This Baltimore Sun article, written by Binney and McGovern, is used as the most current source in that paragraph . And the statement above seems to have been derived from this source - a source which is a totally biased and seemingly agenda driven opinion piece. And, it is filled with supposition. Also, Binney and McGovern are using this article as platform to smear Clapper, for stuff that happened years ago.
:::And the smearing is being used as if it is a rationale for why the emails were leaked and not hacked. Hey, let's take a giant step backward, to July and August 2016, when the internet was filled with conspiracy theories similar to this. Binney is stuck in mid-year 2016 conspiracy theories. I don't have a problem with opinion pieces being used in articles, but not opinion pieces like this. I think this article should be removed as a source because it is not a reliable source. ------] (]) 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} I sincerely do not understand what is unclear. The disputed sentence stars with "Binnen and McGovern wrote that…", clearly that's their statement, and the whole paragraph repeats their names three times, making it super clear that we are not speaking in wikivoice. We can still discuss whether their view is ], however this is neither an attribution problem, nor is it a BLP issue per ]. On the procedural side, I note that the DS/1RR notice saying "do not revert any edit challenged by reversion" is being blissfully ignored. Oh well… — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|MelbourneStar|Steve Quinn|JFG}} I have used a direct quote from the ''Baltimore Sun'' piece to make it abundantly clear (I hope) that this is Binney and McGovern's view. Would you mind checking if is reasonable? -] (]) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::It's no improvement, in my opinion. Please, see my comments below (at 15:01, 12 Feb 17). ] (]) 15:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of DS/1RR is that longstanding material cannot be removed without consensus (this is the interpretation that {{u|MelanieN}} gave ). As far as I'm concerned, the original bold removal was fine, but once that removal was reverted, consensus would be required before it was attempted again. I don't see a consensus for the removal of Binney and McGovern's opinions here. -] (]) 18:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
*Hopefully, it is understood that I agree with its removal as UNDUE, and as a BLP smear. It is not necessary to have this in the article and it only serves to denigrate Clapper. He must be doing something right if he has been working for the G.W. Bush administration and then the Obama administration. Cherry picking controversial aspects of national history that he was involved in serves no purpose, other than to rationalize a fringe view for Binney's and McGovern's audience. There seems to be some sort of consensus here for keeping this out. ---] (]) 20:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
::That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research). Also how is this ]? As for ], go ahead and sue ] for libel. So no consensus. ] (]) 22:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Yeah, there seems to be some sort of consensus here for keeping this out. Sorry Guccisamsclub, it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet. But, thanks for your opinion. ---] (]) 23:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I repeat: Politifact is the original source for this"BLP smear" (or have you not read the article youre attacking? ...<s>wouldn't be the first time</s>). Also how is this SYNTH? ] (]) 00:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::Just because you claim (or assert) it is Politico that is the original, doesn't make it so. And the only who cares that it is Politico, Smitico, or Bitico is you - sounding like a ] to me. I'm not attacking anything. ---] (]) 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::'''Read the Baltimore Sun article and check its url refrences. One of them will be politiFACT (NOT politiCO), which they cite in support of their "smear" of Clapper. Then read the Politifact piece.''' '''This is the ''third time'' you are being told to ''read'' the politifact piece''' cited in by McGovern and Binney. If you talk without reading, you are being disruptive. '''If you actively refuse to read, you are being intentionally disruptive.''' ] (]) 12:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
{{ping|Thucydides411}}Your understanding is shaky. One month is "longstanding"? Not. -- Not all editors are glued to their computers 24/7 -- in fact there may be a systematic bias toward freaks and geeks that favors such editors over the more worldly and broadly read among us. Be that as it may, there's no "longstanding" here. ]] 01:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|"more worldly and broadly read among us"}}. Who do you have in mind? Yourself and Steve Quinn? ] (]) 12:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

: For this article, one month is long-standing. Above, {{u|MelanieN}} was talking about material that was not much older than that. Since there's no consensus for removing Binney and McGovern's commentary from the article, we can restore it. -] (]) 02:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:: Moral Relativism at its worst! Time doesn't bend to your level of interest. My schedule doesn't quicken when guys like you want to edit 'round the clock. Enjoy it but don't think that puts a burden on the community to run ourselves dizzy keeping up with your American Politics adrenaline rush. Long is long and one month ain't long. I read it on the Intercept. If you think you have permission to edit war BLP violations back into articles over and over, please post a note on Arbcom Enforcement Talk and see what reaction you get. ]] 02:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::{{u|SPECIFICO}} Instead of criticizing your fellow editors, how about answering my rationale above demonstrating that this attributed opinion, grounded in facts, about a public figure, was '''not''' a BLP violation? I'm listening. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I did. Immediately after your erroneous defence above. ]] 03:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::You mean with {{diff||764880147||this comment}}? You just assert BLPVIO again, you give no argument to prove it, whereas I give several arguments to disprove it. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::Here is one problem. First the Binney and McGovern opinion piece say input from Clapper in the Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is clearly absent. And that Clapper has a past of suppressing evidence pertaining to lack of WMD in Iraq and false testimony to Congress about NSA activities. There seems to be no connection between Clapper and the JAR at the time of this op-ed piece. Yet the above statement connects Clapper's past to being skeptical about "his" claims to Russian hacking.
::::::BLP <s>is</s> seems clear on <s>two</s> a few fronts here. The above statement seems to equate with gossip ] in that displaying this information about Clapper in this paragraph is not relevant. Acting as if he is some sort of God and the only one to be believed or disbelieved is UNDUE - which BLP seems to consider as part of its policy in the intro as ]. BLP seems to draw a line from that content policy to unnecessarily draging in dirt about a person.
::::::And the reason people are bringing lack of conviction for a federal offense into the conversation is BLPCRIME, is because, again, it might be against good or stringent editing practices to drag in the dirt - recycle past offenses - if they are not relevant. ] (])
::::::I am not seeing how it is relevant to connect Clapper with being skeptical about Russian hacking and even the Harper's reference should say this in some way. Clapper has a questionable (or worse) past and therefore this supports the following conclusion - whatever the conclusion - does not seem to work. Also, the Binny/McGovern OpEd piece is a primary source. So if BLP is involved more than this is probably needed - I would say. ] (]) 06:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::::If you think there's a BLP issue here, take it to the BLP noticeboard. I simply don't see any case for considering the material in question a BLP violation. First off, it's not "gossip" (i.e., unverifiable derogatory statements that pass from person to person). It's a comment on two widely known facts - that Clapper was involved in making the Iraq WMD case in 2002, and that his Senate testimony on NSA spying contained a prominent falsehood. We don't know these things through gossip. They're matters of public record, and Clapper's testimony is even on video. We're not repeating gossip here. As for ], here's what the policy actually says: "'''For relatively unknown people''', editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis added). Clapper is not relatively unknown. He's a public figure. And we're not even suggesting he's guilty of a crime. We're simply describing an opinion that notes a well known fact: Clapper's Senate testimony on NSA spying contained a falsehood.
:::::::{{tq|"I am not seeing how it is relevant to connect Clapper with being skeptical about Russian hacking"}}. You're not required to agree with Binney and McGovern's commentary on Clapper and skepticism about allegations of Russian hacking. All of us editors probably disagree with one or another commentary cited in this article, but agreement with commentary isn't (or shouldn't be) the metric we go by when deciding what commentary to reference. Binney and McGovern are fairly well known intelligence figures, so their commentary is noteworthy.
:::::::Finally, on the procedural issue here, the Binney/McGovern commentary was removed from the article, and this removal was challenged. That means that the second removal of the commentary was not in line with DS/1RR. This material has been in the article for more than a month (since ), so it's long-standing. Above {{u|MelanieN}} described 58-day-old material as long-standing, and 37 days is a similar timespan. And to {{u|SPECIFICO}}'s objection that this definition of long-standing puts an undue burden on editors, I'd just note that there are many editors here ({{u|SPECIFICO}} included) who edit this page several times a week. This material has been up for more than five weeks. How many times have you edited the article or commented on the talk page since then, {{u|SPECIFICO}}? This pace of editing clearly isn't an undue burden on you. So it looks like the correct course of action for now is for this long-standing material to be added back in, and then for anyone who thinks it violates BLP to take their concerns to the BLP noticeboard. -] (]) 07:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Thucydides411}} I appreciate the above response. It is well articulated. I brought in specific BLP issues because {{u|JFG}} seemed to be requesting what specific BLP issues are relevant. Also, SPECIFICO and one other editor have brought BLP issues into this conversation. So, it might be premature to go over to the BLP noticeboard right now. I suggest seeing what others editors say about this. ] (]) 07:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::FWIW, I appreciate {{u|Steve Quinn}}'s rationale although I disagree with his stance, and I fully endorse {{u|Thucydides411}}'s response. As for process, I have now restored the contentious material, slightly copy-edited, into the article, pending the outcome of this discussion. — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}
*The sentence on Clapper needs to be deleted and the rest of the paragraph shortened. The lengthy quotes and indirect quotes give way too much prominence to these former members of the Intelligence Community. Any inside information Binney and McGovern have on the US intelligence community and its tools and methods is outdated by 15 and 26 years, respectively. Binney says that he "… created many of the collection systems still used by NSA". We’ll just have to take his word for it, don’t we?
:Did they shop their opinion piece (770 words) around and find one ? "''Contributions to the Opinion-Commentary page of The Sun are welcome and should be between 600 and 750 words including a single sentence bio for the author(s).''" (You won’t get paid but we’ll use it if we need to fill space and if you’ve used complete sentences.) Note how their single sentence bio does not mention that McGovern retired in 1990? No other RS picked up the op-ed or reported on it.
:You have to factor in the personal bias the op-ed writers may have, in the case of Binney and McGovern their history with their former employers and their association with Assange. Binney is a regular RT contributor, and McGovern is an Assange associate. Here’s McGovern "… spread some truth around" on : "Bill says the snooping has progressed to the point where the initials NSA now stand for “New Stasi Agency,” because NSA has become the East German Stasi (secret police) on steroids."
:Clapper. Worded in what appears to be Misplaced Pages voice in text pretending to be indirect quotes. "''They also wrote that '''given James Clapper's false testimony''' … and his involvement in building the WMD case …''". The reference says that he "'''admitted''' giving … false testimony". He didn’t, although he admitted to some tiptoeing around; there’s that "protecting national security secrets" thing. As for who built the WMD case, it’s pretty well established that it was the Bush administration (or certain factions in it) bending and stretching whatever reports they had. And all of that warranting "… skepticism about '''his''' claims of Russian hacking …": They’re not claims, they are accusations, and they are not '''his''' accusations, but those of the US Intelligence community.
:"Long-standing text": To keep up with the changes, you'd have to have a lot of spare time to read the entire article 10 times a day, especially when you take the time to look at the references. Stuff gets overlooked for a while. ] (]) 15:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:: Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all. ]] 15:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}{{tq|He didn’t, although he admitted to some tiptoeing around; there’s that "protecting national security secrets" thing.}} He admitted his answer was "wrong", but claimed to misunderstand a clearly-worded question, an excuse nobody has been willing to buy (talk about fringe). The fact that Clapper ''also'' has an incompatible ''backup excuse'' in the form of "national security reasons"—the reasons for ''everything''—has no bearing on the fact that he gave a "wrong" answer. It just means his words are dictated by political and bureaucratic imperatives, not by the facts. It also means that he can't make an honest retraction. Such a reliable source... {{tq|it’s pretty well established that it was the Bush administration (or certain factions in it) bending and stretching whatever reports they had}}. Read the Iraq thread on this page. The idea that the intelligence community was NOT deeply complicit—which seems to be what you're implying—in the manufacture of false WMD intel is a transparently ] Nancy Pelosi talking point.] (]) 15:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|SPECIFICO}} You have any ''verifiable'' statements you want to make, or just absurdly vague personal attacks? The only person consistently and successfully gaming Arbcom is you. ] (]) 15:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::In their fifth paragraph Binney/McGovern make a claim ("Clapper admitted giving ... false testimony"), in their last paragraph it has become a given ("given Mr. Clapper's checkered record for accuracy"), and the indirect Misplaced Pages quote turned it into "given James Clapper's "false testimony ...". Pedantic semantics? Maybe so, but it's not neutral viewpoint, and the source is unreliable. ] (]) 16:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} I simply disagree with you that Binney and McGovern are such biased sources, compared to other commentators, that their views should just be excluded from the article. Arguments about length of text are fine - I'm not exactly sure how many sentences they deserve. But zero doesn't make any sense. Both Binney and McGovern had careers in the CIA, and are both now well known critics.

{{reply to|SPECIFICO}} please stop impugning the motives of other editors, darkly hinting at conspiracies, and rather focus on content. By repeatedly assuming bad faith, promising various forms of retaliation, you are making discussion very difficult. This is an editorial room: we don't need drama. -] (]) 18:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::I impugn no man nor beast. However WP says BLP violations must be removed until there's consensus the text is OK. And it has nothing to do with good faith bad faith or any other faith. When in doubt, take it out. Thx. ]] 19:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|SPECIFICO}} you said above, {{tq|''"disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases..."''}} Who are you referring to if not the editors who have disagreed with you here? -] (]) 19:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Don't be so defensive. I'm a social scientist by training. I'm talking about the functioning of a self-governed volunteer community. Interestingly, your word "impugn" reminded me of the word "impunity" -- Good faith violations are still disruptive and that's not my opinion that is the mainstream Western view. I can't speak to Asian or other communities. ]] 19:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::Alright, well please consider striking your comments, or adding an addendum clarifying them. Based on your response here I will assume you're not referring to me other other editors on this page. -] (]) 19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::I think my words are clear. I hope that you'll consider the underlying issue. Rather than focus on redacting talk page comments, perhaps you'll remove the disputed text from the article. Thanks. ]] 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
----
:I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x, Steve Quinn, Casprings, and SPECIFICO here. Leaving aside BLP for the moment, I find the material at issue to be (1) undue; (2) out of scope; and (3) phrased in a POV way. (These are related concepts, but I think it's useful to think of each separately for the moment).
::As to the first point, ], as Space4 has noted before, "Any inside information Binney and McGovern have on the US intelligence community and its tools and methods is outdated by 15 and 26 years, respectively." Frankly, I do not find their views any more significant or salient than dozens or hundreds of other commentators and pundits. If we are to quote or paraphrase the views of commentators, I would far prefer the space be taken up by contemporary scholars of Russia, U.S.-Russia relations, or cybersecurity.
::As to the second point, I think it's ]. Even if Clapper misled Congress about surveillance (and my ''personal'' belief, like many others such as ], is that ), I don't think this has any direct bearing on Russian interference. To include this would be to make an atmospheric "he's not credible" argument that, if not misleading, at the very best requires an inferential leap.
::As to the third point, Space4 is clearly correct that the indirect Misplaced Pages quote "given James Clapper's "false testimony ..." is improper and POV. It accepts as fact a highly contentious claim &mdash; one that Clapper has (he has called his testimony "clearly erroneous" and said "I made a mistake. But I did not lie. There's a big difference."). Regardless of whether we find this credible personally, the news sources (not opinion sources) clearly don't say flat out that he lied (e.g., : "''To his critics'', Clapper lied under oath"; : "A year later, Clapper’s testimony represents one of the great, and unfortunate, holes in timely fact-checking. The challenge in discerning whether those with privileged information, particularly on matters of national security, are speaking truthfully in public is a difficult, if not impossible, task.").
:So yes, this should be excluded. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::(1) Agreed: their views are worthwhile, and so are others. Let's find some more. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::(2) This "inference leap" is exactly the point of Binnen and McGovern's commentary, and it's fair game, given the "inference leaps" that the intelligence services want the public to accept. ("Looks like the DNC hacker spoke Russian, therefore only Putin could have directed such a complex operation.") As long as their inference is attributed and not misrepresented, I see no problem. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::(3) Yes, we can and should work on the formulation to clearly convey the authors' opinion without distorting it, condoning it or dismissing it. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

::::Replying to the points that {{u|Neutrality}} made, one by one:
:::::1. {{tq|undue}}: The fact that Binney and McGovern are no longer working in intelligence doesn't disqualify them as commentators. In fact, the section their views are included in is under the heading "Commentary and reactions : Intelligence community : Former members." Unless that whole section is undue, I don't see how Binney and McGovern's views are undue.
:::::2. {{tq|out of scope}}: Binney and McGovern are directly addressing the subject of this article: allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. They raise the question of Clapper's trustworthiness because he's one of the principle people publicly making accusations of Russian hacking. In Binney and McGovern's view, the evidence that has been presented publicly is weak, and the person asking everyone to trust the allegations is not trustworthy. You can agree or disagree with Binney and McGovern on this, but they are making an argument that is relevant to this article, and they are well known former intelligence officers. We're not really here to debate whether we think one commentator's argument is convincing or not, but rather whether it is relevant to the article and whether we're representing the range of opinions on the subject accurately.
:::::3. {{tq|phrased in a POV way}}: I think the claim that Clapper gave false testimony is clearly attributed (especially now that it's in quotation marks), but if you think there's a better way to phrase the relevant sentence, without losing the meaning of what Binney and McGovern are trying to say, then please propose an alternate wording.
::::-] (]) 06:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The way that second sentence is presented is clearly a BLP violation. I also agree that this is essentially UNDUE, although I'm not clear on whether this is a "regular" opinion piece by Baltimore Sun or one of those "commentary" ones, which are really just glorified letters to the editor.] (]) 21:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:I have removed the specific part regarding false claims as that is the bit I find to be a BLP-problem. I do think the entire section is probably an undue reference, an opinion-piece in the baltimore sun does not seem to me to be notable enough for inclusion. ] (]) 11:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Only in death}} in your summary you wrote, {{tq|''"Quote does not appear in source, source only has two mentions of 'false' one of which states Clapper admitted giving Congress false testimony which AFAIK is not the case. Removed as BLP concern."''}} However the '''' clearly states:

{{tq|''"Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, '''false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans.''' Four months later, after the Edward Snowden revelations, Mr. Clapper apologized to the Senate for testimony he admitted was "clearly erroneous.""''}}

My placing the direct quote in the article text uses the same language:

{{tq|''"They also wrote that given ]'s '''"false testimony regarding the extent of ],"''' and his involvement in building the ] case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking was warranted."''}}


Face it. They're both just conspiracy theories. Stop treating one as fact and the other as fiction. I hate how each side flaunts the same conspiracy theory but acts like it's not a conspiracy theory just because it fits their narrative. When a source doesn't fit a person's narrative, they label it an unreliable source, when a source does fit their narrative, they label it a reliable source, despite the characteristics of said sources being the same
Do you see how those quotes are the same, and that your edit summary was incorrect?
] (]) 15:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


:Because foreign interference in the 2016 election is a fact and a stolen 2020 election is fiction. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
It is a matter of record that Clapper gave testimony to congress that was incorrect: . His lawyer has stated that his testimony - that the NSA (which he oversaw) was not collecting data on millions of American citizens - was "not an untruth or a falsehood. This was just a mistake." Clapper himself described his testimony as "clearly erroneous."
::No, it's not. Neither is fact. If Russiagate were, there would've been sufficient evidence to charge Trump, and even this page acknowledges that there wasn't. ] (]) 15:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::THis is about Russian interference, there is evidence of that. What there is not evidence for is Trump knowingly asking them to do it. ] (]) 15:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Your mistaking {{tq|foreign interference}} for {{tq|collusion}} is unfortunate, but not our problem. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::So you choose to separate the Interference from Trump. That's fine, as long as you accept the ridiculous nature of the collusion c ] (]) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Where do we say there was collusion? ] (]) 16:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::: IP24.121.228.241, more accurately, where do we say there was "conspiracy"? There was plenty of cooperation, also known as collusion, but Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination". These are specific terms used in investigations, so we should be careful. Mueller's investigation was a limited, not very thorough, and strictly criminal investigation, so non-criminal, even treasonous, collusion was of little interest to him, and he said so. He specifically addressed collusion and how he did not treat it the same as conspiracy. See ].
::::: The ], which dwarfs the Mueller investigation in size and thoroughness, was a counterintelligence investigation, and it found plenty of very worrying open and secret cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Read ].
::::: On August 16, 2018, former CIA Director ] stated that Trump's claims of no collusion with Russia were "hogwash":
::::: {{blockquote| The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets.<ref name="Brennan_8/16/2018">{{cite news | last=Brennan | first=John O. | title=Opinion – John Brennan: President Trump's Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash | newspaper=] | date=August 16, 2018 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-trump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.html | access-date=August 18, 2018}}</ref>}}
::::: Trump and Barr claimed that Mueller exonerated Trump and that there was "no collusion", but that was false:
::::: {{blockquote| As Mueller made clear in the public statement he offered Wednesday — his first of substance since being appointed as special counsel — Trump’s summary was not an accurate one. The special counsel’s report explicitly rejected analysis of “collusion,” a vague term that lacks a legal meaning. Instead of a lack of “collusion” between Trump’s campaign and Russia, Mueller said that “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."<ref name="Bump_5/29/2019">{{cite web | last=Bump | first=Philip | title=Trump's mantra was once 'no collusion, no obstruction.' It isn't anymore. | website=] | date=May 29, 2019 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/trumps-mantra-was-once-no-collusion-no-obstruction-it-isnt-anymore/ | access-date=September 29, 2024}}</ref>}}
::::: So words mean something. Be careful and be specific. -- ] (]) (PING me) 17:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::you dont sound academically oriented. russiagate is a conspiracy theory ] (]) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Again this article is about Russian interface, not collusion. ] (]) 13:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::There was foreign interference in every election, and technically all kinds of errors in every election, yet there are no dozens of sections articles with references longer than my arm about them. Who cares if he met with foreigners prior to assuming office? Thats normal, every president did it and he's doing it now. Who cares that some Russian university bought $~200k in facebook ads or ran some experiments? Every Canadian, European and American university has similar social media experiments (I took part in one). Zero convictions came from this, its all smoke and mirrors.
::::From the outside, this is a 4 year attempt to delegitimize an elected president, an attempt by one party, media, loyalists of the prior regime, and supporters of institutions who wanted to ilicitly grab power for their bureocratic fiefdoms. These groups colluded to perform a soft coup which succeeded in many ways - eg. refusal to follow direct POTUS orders on exiting Syria, direct statement that a general would "warn china" of a surprise attack the POTUS does, refusal to end the lockdown after the first two weeks... It has never happened before in history.
::::And Misplaced Pages is now part of this soft coup, with all that entails. ] (]) 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:because[REDACTED] has unfortunately a far left bias ] (]) 09:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::If you mean a bias for RS, yes. ] (]) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


{{reftalk}}
It is ''extraordinary'' to state that quoting former senior intelligence officials who call the testimony "false" amounts to a ] violation. Misplaced Pages is ] and attributing such a statement to officials is a normal part of neutrally, accurately describing the kind of conversation that takes place (and is taking place) in a Democracy. -] (]) 15:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
:1. An opinion piece is not a suitable source for contentious claims about living people. 2. The source says 'Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans.' Which he has not, what he *has* said is that he gave information in error. They are not the same. 'I told a lie' is not the same as 'I said something that later turned out to not be true'. You are using the second to justify the first, albeit because the source does so. If this was a high quality reliable source the claim would at least have some weight behind it. This is an opinion piece which is not. Opinion pieces are rarely acceptable for claims about living people. 3.You are unlikely to convince me or anyone else who deals on a regular basis with BLP concerns that an op-ed is acceptable for a criminal allegation *as a passing comment* on a larger article, so I wouldnt bother trying. 4. It appears from above there are numerous other complaints about the piece in general (unrelated to the BLP issue) that indicate it fails NPOV/is UNDUE. So I suggest you concentrate on that. ] (]) 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 ==
::{{re|Only in death}} If you have BLP concerns, take them to the BLP noticeboard. As it is, you're in violation of the 1RR rules here, and you should self-revert your latest edit. -] (]) 17:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
:::BLP reverts are exempt from revert restrictions as you have been told multiple times. *I* am not required to take it you the BLPN, but if you wish to, feel free. I, Marek and others have stated here why that particular information is problematic. You now need to demonstrate there is consensus here to reinsert it per ] and since it was orginally removed by Specifico a few days ago, the BIG DS NOTICE at the top of this page states it should not have been reinstated absent consensus to do so. So even if you did manage to gain consensus its not a BLP concern, you still could not reinstate it per the DS notice above - and given the arguments below regarding the baltimore sun reference in general, that consensus is not yet forthcoming. So no, I wont be reinstating it, you have been made aware it requires consensus to reinstate it, if you put it back again you will be violating both the DS applied to this page and ]. ] (]) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|answered=y}}
::{{reply to|Only in death}} I agree that it is fine to have a conversation about ] or ], but you are incorrect to think that comments by public figures calling Clapper's testimony "false" violate ]. Under the rubric you propose, any prominent, public criticism of powerful government officials that implies misconduct cannot even be reproduced with attribution here, unless those officials have been convicted of a crime. That would include statements by elected representatives of the American people, journalists, and in this case former intelligence officials and whistleblowers. This is not a standard enforced elsewhere, and certainly does not obtain at the page ]. -] (]) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
]:
:::The 'standard' is that in general opinion pieces are primary sources for the opinion of the author. This means they are treated on an individual basis depending on the opinion, where its published, the material it is supporting. Opinion pieces are almost never used regarding material *about* living people regardless of who is who, due to the BLP generally prohibiting primary sources in that context. Were the authors quoted by a reporter in a newspaper in a non-op-ed this would not be an issue. This is a standard universally applied across[REDACTED] and is reflected in ], ] and ] ] (]) 17:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


During a ] with Russian Foreign Minister ] and Ambassador ] on May 10, 2017...
== Removed 'Baltimore Sun' reference ==
I removed this reference because it does not seem to be reliable, or in any way tries to engage in facts. If interested see my comments in the above section. Although the "]" newspaper is considered a reliable source, this particular reference should not be considered as such. It appears to be a totally biased and seemingly agenda driven opinion piece. And, it seems filled with supposition. Comments? --] (]) 16:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
:Oh great, so now their statement stands unsourced, so I suppose the next step is to delete it entirely? Sure, these are biased statements, and they are attributed accordingly. Quoting biased statements is fine, provided they are attributed and representative of a serious minority viewpoint. See ]:
::{{talkquote|Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.}}
:You may argue to exclude this source per ] but I'm not convinced: Clapper's integrity has been criticized by dozens and dozens of sources. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


:As has been said, bias is not a reason for exclusion (if you think it should be take it to the RSN noticeboard).] (]) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC) This is the same event, can you please add a hyperlink? —— ] (]) 19:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]) 21:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::Grateful. —— ] (]) 00:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2024 ==
::{{re|Steve Quinn}} The Baltimore Sun opinion piece was included under the "Commentary and Reactions" section of the article. It's not being used to source statements of fact, but to relay opinions. Many of the opinions in the "Commentary and Reactions" section are agenda-driven and totally biased, but that doesn't mean that they don't merit inclusion in this article. As long as they're noteworthy, properly attributed, and given appropriate weight, then their inclusion is fine. -] (]) 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|answered=yes}}
:See ]: "Editorial commentary...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." Since we are using the commentary to source its authors opinions, it is wholly reliable. ] does not say that minority views should be excluded, just that they be presented as minority views. ] and ] have gone against orthodox views in the past: Binney questioned whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or whether torture is a good practice, while Binney questioned the merits of the NSA monitoring communications of ordinary Americans. But crazy as their ideas may be, they are frequently mentioned in mainstream media. ] (]) 19:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In the U.S. Government Response section, I think the sentence "At least 17 distinct investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Should be changed to "At least 17 distinct legal investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." I think the original phrasing is unclear as it makes it seem like there were 17 intelligence investigations whereas the cited source is only talking about legal cases against Donald Trump in relation to the 2016 Election. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
: {{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ]<sup>]</sup> 20:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Unbalanced section ==
:: This seems to be ] to place an opinion in this article that basically alleges a felony crime by a living person. I agree with excluding this. ] (]) 20:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
:: It's an "opinion"? Well duh. The section deals with ''reactions'' from the former spies. Per WP:BLP, nobody can dispute a US official's testimony unless said official has been convicted of a felony? It ''must'' be true, otherwise the official would be in jail, right? Give.me.a.break. Obviously only officials of certain nationalities are eligible for this absurd "safe space" treatment (officials from bad countries can qualify for "you're a thief/killer/thug" treatment, no court docs required). You ''think'' Binney and McGovern are "unreliable"? You also thought that the intel community did not conclude Iraq had WMDs, that the hacking findings are endorsed by 17 agencies, and plenty of other mind-bending stuff. Frankly Steve, you are not in a position to critique ''any'' source on this topic (this applies to SPEC too). ] (]) 20:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


This article's section titled "2020 committee report" (8.1.2) contains three paragraphs verbatim of Democratic members' assessment of the Committee report, sourced from the end of Volume 5 of the Report under the title: ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS HEINRICH, FEINSTEIN, WYDEN, HARRIS, AND BENNET. The same section of this article represents Republicans' view with a partial quote, the equivalent of a single sentence, from Senator Rubio, which is sourced from ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS RISCH, RUBIO, BLUNT,
:::I don't know anything about being convicted of a felony or what bearing that has on anything. I'm not bringing that into this argument. This piece is pure speculation, bereft of facts. This has nothing to do with any US official's testimony. Well, except for the fact that Binney and McGovern are trying to bring that into the conversation. Just because Clapper was involved with the Iraq fiascos has no bearing on what is happening now.
COTTON, CORNYN, AND SASSE in Volume 5 of the Report. This, in my assessment, is a clearly and seriously unbalanced treatment of the partisan reactions to the report. A remedy is required and could be one of the following: 1) Reducing the size of the Democratic quoted response and adding a similarly-sized block quote from the Republican response; 2) Eliminating the three paragraphs quoting the Democratic response and adding a Democratic response to the body of the text similar in size the to single quotation from Rubio; 3) Enlarging the Republican quotation in the body of the text and adding a similarly-sized Democratic quotation in the body text while removing the oversize Democratic block quote; 4) Adding three paragraphs of quotations from the Republican response to balance the extended Democratic block quotation. My preference is #1, #2 or #3, because lengthy quotations of primary material are discouraged in Misplaced Pages. The Democratic response in the committee Report is considerably longer than the Republican response, but that does not justify such clearly unbalanced treatment (effectively one sentence, compared to three paragraphs) in this section of this article, a situation that can readily and justifiably be interpreted as a partisan slant in this article that we should unhesitatingly correct. ] (]) 01:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This has to do with speculation supported by by a U.S. official's former behavior, and the behavior of the NSA. And so what about the intel report on Iraq. I was relying on memory, had never seen that report before, and I was overall accurate except for the Intel report. There were no WMD's discovered when the troops went in, and the Bush administration was admonished in the press for it.
:::Big deal about about an Intel report from 15 years ago. Also, I really don't need you trying to impugn my capabilities just because you won one argument. So what. Big deal. Have cigar or whatever you do. As far as leaving this out, I would like to hear more input from other editors. Also, I am studying the links to policies and guidelines that people have posted in this thread. Thanks.] (]) 21:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
::::{{u|Guccisamsclub}} If you think this piece is reliable then I am really surprised. I don't know about Binney and McGovern in general - but this editorial is really lacking. --] (]) 21:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|"I was overall accurate except for the Intel report"}} No, just no. Drinking Jack Daniels and having some ], fwiw. ] (]) 21:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Guccisamsclub}} Is this the best you can do - personal insults and disrespectful behavior? Well, I guess this means I was overall accurate. Thanks. ---] (]) 21:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::No. ] (]) 22:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


Done. {{tick}} ] (]) 00:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:] thinks that it is WP:UNDUE to report an opinion that basically alleges a felony crime by a living person in an article that basically alleges a felony crime by a living person - hacking computer systems and influencing an election. UNDUE btw says that articles should present the opinions that are presented in reliable sources not that allegations of bad behavior should not be mentioned. The '']'' is one of the most repected newspapers in the U.S. They've been publishing opinions that basically allege felony crimes by living persons since 1837, including by ], whose stories were the basis of "Homicide: Life on the Street" and "The Wire." They know more about what is legimate to publish than we do. ] (]) 23:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


:: One is the intelligence conclusions by the US and reported in numerous WP:RS and officially released by the government. The other is an OP piece in a paper. A decent paper, but still an OP piece in a paper. Not nearly the same thing. ] (]) 23:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC) :That is an invalid argument per ]. In other words, there is no obligation to include one party's take just because another party's take is included. But I have deleted all of those lengthy quotes because they are cited only to primary sources. ] (]) 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::I can accept deletion of all the primary source quotations. Originally, the Democratic block quotation was introduced with essentially undisguised favoritism by an editor who wrote:
::TFD, you are an esteemed member of the community here, but I am struck by the vapid Straw Man argument and false analogy here. WRT the first, suffice it to say it sounds as if you're putting words in Casprings mouth. WRT the second, the Baltimore Sun is publishing primary and secondary documents whereas we here are in the third tier, where the sourcing is much more limited. But I think you knew both those points, actually. Maybe they escaped others who might read them. ]] 23:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
::"Contrary to some of the Republican members of the Committee, the Democratic Senators had no doubts about Trump and his campaign's efforts to help Russia"...
* My comments in section. ] (]) 15:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::...and then proceeded to load up the section with the three paragraphs of Democratic opinions about the Report, while constraining the Republican response to the single-sentence Rubio quotation.
::This was not a case of false balance, however. That part of the NPOV policy says: "policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". Applying that guidance to justify the three-paragraph vs. single-sentence imbalance that existed in the article section would denote that the Republican opinion is, according to some unspecified authority, "minority", "fringe" or "extraordinary". Undoubtedly, some professional pundits and some Misplaced Pages editors believe that to be the case, but such political opinions cannot be reflected in the content and proportionality of our articles, unless explicitly attributed.
::The U.S. Republican and Democratic political parties contend the issues covered in the Senate Report and use different key words to make their points, especially "collusion" and "cooperation". I am not aware that any neutral or undisputed authority has adjudicated that one side or the other is in the minority or espouses a fringe view. Rather, this is a case of political partisanship between the two major U.S. political parties, and we have an obligation to represent their views with adequate balance. ] (]) 02:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


==Pierre Sprey== ==Opening sentence==
I deleted the sentence on Pierre : An analyst of military budgets and programs way before the end of the Cold War? ("Breaking news: Earthquake in Japan. Here’s our reporter on the scene in India, reporting from the same hemisphere.") Spray was an aeronautical engineer working for the Pentagon until 1986 who then went into the business of recording music. Ah yes, 1986. Good times: The and only another year to wait for Microsoft Works for DOS and Star Trek TNG. ''"Of course," he added with a laugh, "the art of creating threats has advanced tremendously since that primitive era."'' They exaggerated the size of Russia’s guns back then, so they’re lying about Russia's interference now? Sheesh. ] (]) 15:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


'''I've been reverted. '''
:Hey {{ping|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} I don't have any attachment to Sprey as an individual, but they are being quoted by ] - a frequent, notable commentator on international affairs - in '']''. Sprey is effectively cited to describe the notion of "threat inflation." While I don't mind eliminating Sprey's name in the article, I think we should somehow reference the idea, either by quoting Cockburn, or Sprey. -] (]) 19:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::This article has nothing to do with threat inflation, the projections of Cheney's WMD to the contrary notwithstanding. This article is about what happened. Not drumming up hysteria to bomb a country to smithereens. Old opinions on the subject -- more than a week old now, with fresh revelations -- are worth very little. I suggest we find fresh commentary to the extent commentary is needed for this encyclopedia article. ]] 20:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::That wholly misses the point: Cockburn is writing about the possibility that allegations of election interference are a form of threat inflation. Do you not get that from the article? It states, {{tq|''"...we couldn’t stop their threat-inflating, and their nonworking weapons continued to be produced in huge quantities. Of course," he added with a laugh, “the art of creating threats has advanced tremendously since that primitive era." Sprey was referring to the current belief that the Russians had hacked into the communications of the Democratic National Committee...''}} Or is it that you personally disagree with Sprey and Cockburn, and do not want their view in the article? -] (]) 20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


] (talk | ])
::::Indeed, Cockburn's article deals with the alleged Russian hacking directly, and ties Sprey's remarks direclty to that issue. I'll just repeat what I've written above: not every editor will agree with every opinion cited in the article, or find every opinion plausible, but the metric we should go by is notability of the opinions. Sprey does have expertise in intelligence matters, and Cockburn is a well known political commentator in America, writing in a prestigious magazine. -] (])
:::::My friend, it has been explained by several editors on various occasions that "notability" is not the test as to whether article content is appropriate. ]] 21:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


Undid revision ] by ] (]). Without credible opposition in reliable sources, this is a statement of fact, not a POV
:::::::(edit conflict) Yes, I was speaking a bit loosely. I didn't mean that ] applies to sources, but I read ] and ] as requiring some sort of notability of the commentary. My point is that whether or not particular editors agree with the arguments the commentators make is not the metric we use to determine whether those commentaries should be included in the article. I'm not going to argue against {{u|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}'s opinion of Pierre Sprey's commentary, because that's not the point. The point is that he was quoted by Alexander Cockburn in Harper's. -] (]) 21:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


:It would appear that anything the US "intelligence community" claims is now, per Goegene, a '''fact''' - unless you can '''prove''' it isn't. This is so bizzare that it appears to '''prove''' the online conspiracy theories that the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki. Seriously? And is the American Intelligence Community the only one on Earth whose utterances are taken as FACT - or are there others? ] (]) 17:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I for one don't care whether Sprey's opinion is included or not, but I'm getting really tired of reading {{u|SPECIFICO|your}} relentless opposition to include anything you ''personally'' disagree with. As a veteran Wikipedian, your fellow editors expect a tad more ] from you, less ] and fewer ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::It was just US intelegence that said it. ] (]) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Your personal attacks have got to stop. Now. That stuff is ]. Stuff can be verified, published in RS and be undue for an article on a specific topic. Please comment on content not contributors. ]] 21:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Is this fact being disputed in reliable sources? ] says, {{tq|Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example the sky is blue not believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.}}. So, I will ask you again, {{u|Sarah777}}, is there credible opposition in reliable sources? If there is not, then this is a ''fact''. ] (]) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I am criticizing your comments, not your person. And you have made plenty of personal attacks before receiving the slightest admonition, so please don't go there. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
::::You are assuming there are reliable sources to support the original claim. What are they? ] (]) 18:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I advised you to "comment on content". ]] 22:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree that Sprey is undue. Not cleat on what the fact he said something to Cockburn has to do with it - the text isn't about Cockburn so that's completely beside the point.] (]) 21:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC) :::::I'm sorry, are you asking whether or not sources exist for ]? ] (]) 18:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Reliable ones - you know, other than the "US intelligence community" or sources merely citing them. Yes, I'm asking for that. ] (]) 22:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::There are 605 sources cited in the article. You must not be serious. ] (]) 23:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm very serious. Can you point out a few of those 605 sources which are not citing the "US intelligence community" or sources merely repeating those claims? ] (]) 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::"Can you point out a reliable source, but not one of those 605 reliable sources?" The RS are RS, even if you want to discount them all. What would you accept as a valid source on this topic? A MAGA Republican's twitter feed? You're not going to be satisfied with the result of this conversation so it's best to accept it and move on. {{tq|the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki}} is pretty ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::So, out of 605 "reliable sources" you can't even supply one?! And I'm not American and have zero interest in the Maga folk. To me the DNC and Maga are two sides of the same coin. ] (]) ] (]) 00:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Btw..."but not one of those 605 reliable sources" - I'm stating that I don't beleive any of them are reliable sources. Seemingly you can't supply any source that hasn't originated with the US "intelligence community". Why am I not surprised? ] (]) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, not "can't", "won't". I'm not playing your game. It's not on me to satisfy you personally after all of the years of editing and consensus-building that has taken place on this article, especially when you've already ] to such a ridiculous place beyond the pitch. I don't care where you're from (other than it influencing my choice of the word "pitch" over "field") and what you personally believe is irrelevant here. I care that we have RS in the article, 605 of them in fact, and they are reliable ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Nonsense. And you probably know it. ] (]) 01:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:56, 2 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections at the Reference desk.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good articlesRussian interference in the 2016 United States elections was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 6, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconComputer Security: Computing High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as High-importance).
Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:
Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...
  • Review importance and quality of existing articles
  • Identify categories related to Computer Security
  • Tag related articles
  • Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
  • Identify articles for improvement
  • Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
  • Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconEspionage Top‑importance
WikiProject iconRussian interference in the 2016 United States elections is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Intelligence / Technology / Post-Cold War C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Intelligence task force
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Politics and law High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections / Government / History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States Presidents: Donald Trump High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.
WikiProject icon2010s High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Why does Misplaced Pages label the 2020 election theft conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory, but not the 2016 Collusion?

Face it. They're both just conspiracy theories. Stop treating one as fact and the other as fiction. I hate how each side flaunts the same conspiracy theory but acts like it's not a conspiracy theory just because it fits their narrative. When a source doesn't fit a person's narrative, they label it an unreliable source, when a source does fit their narrative, they label it a reliable source, despite the characteristics of said sources being the same 24.121.228.241 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Because foreign interference in the 2016 election is a fact and a stolen 2020 election is fiction. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not. Neither is fact. If Russiagate were, there would've been sufficient evidence to charge Trump, and even this page acknowledges that there wasn't. 24.121.228.241 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
THis is about Russian interference, there is evidence of that. What there is not evidence for is Trump knowingly asking them to do it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Your mistaking foreign interference for collusion is unfortunate, but not our problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
So you choose to separate the Interference from Trump. That's fine, as long as you accept the ridiculous nature of the collusion c 24.121.228.241 (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Where do we say there was collusion? Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
IP24.121.228.241, more accurately, where do we say there was "conspiracy"? There was plenty of cooperation, also known as collusion, but Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination". These are specific terms used in investigations, so we should be careful. Mueller's investigation was a limited, not very thorough, and strictly criminal investigation, so non-criminal, even treasonous, collusion was of little interest to him, and he said so. He specifically addressed collusion and how he did not treat it the same as conspiracy. See Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report, which dwarfs the Mueller investigation in size and thoroughness, was a counterintelligence investigation, and it found plenty of very worrying open and secret cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Read Links between Trump associates and Russian officials#2015–2016 foreign surveillance of Russian targets.
On August 16, 2018, former CIA Director John Brennan stated that Trump's claims of no collusion with Russia were "hogwash":

The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets.

Trump and Barr claimed that Mueller exonerated Trump and that there was "no collusion", but that was false:

As Mueller made clear in the public statement he offered Wednesday — his first of substance since being appointed as special counsel — Trump’s summary was not an accurate one. The special counsel’s report explicitly rejected analysis of “collusion,” a vague term that lacks a legal meaning. Instead of a lack of “collusion” between Trump’s campaign and Russia, Mueller said that “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

So words mean something. Be careful and be specific. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
you dont sound academically oriented. russiagate is a conspiracy theory Nickmariostories (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Again this article is about Russian interface, not collusion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
There was foreign interference in every election, and technically all kinds of errors in every election, yet there are no dozens of sections articles with references longer than my arm about them. Who cares if he met with foreigners prior to assuming office? Thats normal, every president did it and he's doing it now. Who cares that some Russian university bought $~200k in facebook ads or ran some experiments? Every Canadian, European and American university has similar social media experiments (I took part in one). Zero convictions came from this, its all smoke and mirrors.
From the outside, this is a 4 year attempt to delegitimize an elected president, an attempt by one party, media, loyalists of the prior regime, and supporters of institutions who wanted to ilicitly grab power for their bureocratic fiefdoms. These groups colluded to perform a soft coup which succeeded in many ways - eg. refusal to follow direct POTUS orders on exiting Syria, direct statement that a general would "warn china" of a surprise attack the POTUS does, refusal to end the lockdown after the first two weeks... It has never happened before in history.
And Misplaced Pages is now part of this soft coup, with all that entails. 72.136.117.53 (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
because[REDACTED] has unfortunately a far left bias Nickmariostories (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
If you mean a bias for RS, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Brennan, John O. (August 16, 2018). "Opinion – John Brennan: President Trump's Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
  2. Bump, Philip (May 29, 2019). "Trump's mantra was once 'no collusion, no obstruction.' It isn't anymore". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2024.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey:

During a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on May 10, 2017...

This is the same event, can you please add a hyperlink? —— Cbls1911 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Grateful. —— Cbls1911 (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the U.S. Government Response section, I think the sentence "At least 17 distinct investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Should be changed to "At least 17 distinct legal investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." I think the original phrasing is unclear as it makes it seem like there were 17 intelligence investigations whereas the cited source is only talking about legal cases against Donald Trump in relation to the 2016 Election. HolyRomanSloth (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Tessaract2 20:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unbalanced section

This article's section titled "2020 committee report" (8.1.2) contains three paragraphs verbatim of Democratic members' assessment of the Committee report, sourced from the end of Volume 5 of the Report under the title: ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS HEINRICH, FEINSTEIN, WYDEN, HARRIS, AND BENNET. The same section of this article represents Republicans' view with a partial quote, the equivalent of a single sentence, from Senator Rubio, which is sourced from ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS RISCH, RUBIO, BLUNT, COTTON, CORNYN, AND SASSE in Volume 5 of the Report. This, in my assessment, is a clearly and seriously unbalanced treatment of the partisan reactions to the report. A remedy is required and could be one of the following: 1) Reducing the size of the Democratic quoted response and adding a similarly-sized block quote from the Republican response; 2) Eliminating the three paragraphs quoting the Democratic response and adding a Democratic response to the body of the text similar in size the to single quotation from Rubio; 3) Enlarging the Republican quotation in the body of the text and adding a similarly-sized Democratic quotation in the body text while removing the oversize Democratic block quote; 4) Adding three paragraphs of quotations from the Republican response to balance the extended Democratic block quotation. My preference is #1, #2 or #3, because lengthy quotations of primary material are discouraged in Misplaced Pages. The Democratic response in the committee Report is considerably longer than the Republican response, but that does not justify such clearly unbalanced treatment (effectively one sentence, compared to three paragraphs) in this section of this article, a situation that can readily and justifiably be interpreted as a partisan slant in this article that we should unhesitatingly correct. DonFB (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. checkY DonFB (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That is an invalid argument per WP:FALSEBALANCE. In other words, there is no obligation to include one party's take just because another party's take is included. But I have deleted all of those lengthy quotes because they are cited only to primary sources. Geogene (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I can accept deletion of all the primary source quotations. Originally, the Democratic block quotation was introduced with essentially undisguised favoritism by an editor who wrote:
"Contrary to some of the Republican members of the Committee, the Democratic Senators had no doubts about Trump and his campaign's efforts to help Russia"...
...and then proceeded to load up the section with the three paragraphs of Democratic opinions about the Report, while constraining the Republican response to the single-sentence Rubio quotation.
This was not a case of false balance, however. That part of the NPOV policy says: "policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". Applying that guidance to justify the three-paragraph vs. single-sentence imbalance that existed in the article section would denote that the Republican opinion is, according to some unspecified authority, "minority", "fringe" or "extraordinary". Undoubtedly, some professional pundits and some Misplaced Pages editors believe that to be the case, but such political opinions cannot be reflected in the content and proportionality of our articles, unless explicitly attributed.
The U.S. Republican and Democratic political parties contend the issues covered in the Senate Report and use different key words to make their points, especially "collusion" and "cooperation". I am not aware that any neutral or undisputed authority has adjudicated that one side or the other is in the minority or espouses a fringe view. Rather, this is a case of political partisanship between the two major U.S. political parties, and we have an obligation to represent their views with adequate balance. DonFB (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I've been reverted.

Geogene (talk | contribs)

Undid revision 1264022576 by Sarah777 (talk). Without credible opposition in reliable sources, this is a statement of fact, not a POV

It would appear that anything the US "intelligence community" claims is now, per Goegene, a fact - unless you can prove it isn't. This is so bizzare that it appears to prove the online conspiracy theories that the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki. Seriously? And is the American Intelligence Community the only one on Earth whose utterances are taken as FACT - or are there others? Sarah777 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It was just US intelegence that said it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Is this fact being disputed in reliable sources? WP:YESPOV says, Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example the sky is blue not believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.. So, I will ask you again, Sarah777, is there credible opposition in reliable sources? If there is not, then this is a fact. Geogene (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You are assuming there are reliable sources to support the original claim. What are they? Sarah777 (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you asking whether or not sources exist for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? Geogene (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliable ones - you know, other than the "US intelligence community" or sources merely citing them. Yes, I'm asking for that. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
There are 605 sources cited in the article. You must not be serious. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm very serious. Can you point out a few of those 605 sources which are not citing the "US intelligence community" or sources merely repeating those claims? Sarah777 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"Can you point out a reliable source, but not one of those 605 reliable sources?" The RS are RS, even if you want to discount them all. What would you accept as a valid source on this topic? A MAGA Republican's twitter feed? You're not going to be satisfied with the result of this conversation so it's best to accept it and move on. the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki is pretty WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
So, out of 605 "reliable sources" you can't even supply one?! And I'm not American and have zero interest in the Maga folk. To me the DNC and Maga are two sides of the same coin. Sarah777 (talk) Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Btw..."but not one of those 605 reliable sources" - I'm stating that I don't beleive any of them are reliable sources. Seemingly you can't supply any source that hasn't originated with the US "intelligence community". Why am I not surprised? Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No, not "can't", "won't". I'm not playing your game. It's not on me to satisfy you personally after all of the years of editing and consensus-building that has taken place on this article, especially when you've already moved the goal posts to such a ridiculous place beyond the pitch. I don't care where you're from (other than it influencing my choice of the word "pitch" over "field") and what you personally believe is irrelevant here. I care that we have RS in the article, 605 of them in fact, and they are reliable whether you like that or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Nonsense. And you probably know it. Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections: Difference between revisions Add topic