Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:25, 15 January 2018

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 14 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Not moved, 21 December 2016, /Archive 2#Requested move 21 December 2016 MRV, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Endorsed, 7 January 2017, Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2017 January RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Moved, /Archive_5#Requested_move_17_February_2017 RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Not moved, /Archive 3#Requested move 29 December 2016 RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Grizzly Steppe, Not moved, 30 December 2016, /Archive 3#Requested move 30 December 2016 RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, No consensus, 7 January 2017, /Archive 3#Requested move 7 January 2017 RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia, No consensus, 4 February 2017, /Archive 5#Requested move 4 February 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computer Security: Computing High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald TrumpPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Espionage Top‑importance Russian 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Hillary Clinton Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Intelligence / Technology This 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 This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Intelligence task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections / Government High‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Alyssa Pereira (December 21, 2016). "These were the most edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved December 22, 2016. 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. ... 2016 United States election interference by Russia (641)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 14 days

John McAfee's assessment of DNC hack

Points in John McAfee's analysis deserve mention

Russia DID NOT Hack The DNC - John McAfee Lays It Out Phmoreno (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight. Very few people doubt that Russia was behind the hack, it's not surprising that McAfee would be one of them. RT of course, being a propaganda network, probably has interviewed every one of the denialists by now. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between undue weight and expression of doubt. What matters is if the points McAfee makes are valid or not. And did the DNC ever allow the FBI access to the server? If hey still haven't what is their reason? And where is the mention that this could have been an inside job?Phmoreno (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, WP:FRINGE. Neutrality 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTFORUM. Geogene (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

McAfee is a very fringe figure and his eccentric views don't belong in this article. Neutrality 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

McAfee's character is not the issue, but rather the points he made.Phmoreno (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality means the article should not be one sided. There is a difference between "a high degree of confidence" and certainty. The other possibilities need to be addressed.Phmoreno (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-published fringe POV. It has nothing to do with who said it or why. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Secondary reference added. How many secondary and tertiary references do you need?Phmoreno (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump aide Papadopolous knew Russia had a tranche of stolen Clinton emails two months before they were leaked.

Seems important and should be included. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

Fake news already debunked.Phmoreno (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. [https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/748523/john-mcafee-blasts-fbi-over-russian-hacking-claims 'It's a FALLACY' John McAfee shuts down 'manipulative' FBI claims of Russian hacking, Express UK:
2. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-31/nyt-publishes-report-debunking-fbi-use-dossier-gets-shredded-immediately-fake-news NYT Publishes Report 'Debunking' FBI Use Of Dossier, Gets Immediately Shredded For Fake News

Zero Hedge is not a reliable source. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Fox News also covered this.Phmoreno (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Just the fact you're trying to use a fake news website (zero hedge) AND calling a report from NY Times sorta disqualifies your statements, WP:COMPETENCE.Volunteer Marek 01:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

And by the way that's not a "debunking", that's just "some guy on twitter said" garbage.Volunteer Marek 02:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, you have made 10,970 edits since you registered your account on March 3, 2007. You are no newbie, and yet you have not benefited from being here. One of the most important skills possessed by editors is how to vet sources, and knowing the difference between reliable and unreliable ones. That you, in your private life, entertain any unreliable sources like Fox News, Zero Hedge (and likely Breitbart, Daily Caller, Townhall, etc.), is unfortunate, because GIGO, and we pay the price.

Your personal choices are affecting your editing here. You should never suggest we even consider the use of such unreliable sources. You seriously lack competence and should stick to fixing grammar, spelling, and style issues. Stay away from anything related to determination of facts, except on engineering subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... you know Fox news is actually a reliable source right? Though I do not see a Fox source listed. Also tone down the personal attacks. PackMecEng (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe two years ago. Not anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, actually every time they are brought up at RSN it is confirmed they are a RS. A bias source, but still a RS. Kind of like Mother Jones or Vox. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course following the revelation of Hillary's private email server every internet sleuth on the planet was looking for her emails and very likely there were lots of shadowy figures on the web claiming to have them. Because the FBI had the bar room tip months ago, if Papadopoulos actually knew how to get those or any other campaign related emails the FBI would have gotten it out of him and this case would be over. Fast forward. Now that the FIB is under investigation by congress for political bias based on Inspector General Horowitz's revelations, NY Times publishes the story about Papadopoulos. Coincidentally, this week when Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein have to answer questions about the dossier or be held in contempt of congress NY Times publishes the article. (For how diversion and disinformation works read the Wikileaks emails about providing cover when bad news breaks.) If Papadopoulos' bar room conversation really did start the investigation then why didn't Wray and Rosenstein answer the questions a long time ago? We should know the truth soon.Phmoreno (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. House Intel chairman threatens FBI director, deputy AG with contempt of Congress
2. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/02/why-is-ny-times-suddenly-so-interested-in-trump-staffer-papadopoulos-rather-than-russia-dossier.html Why is the NY Times suddenly so interested in Trump staffer Papadopoulos rather than the Russia dossier?
3. MEdia Fail to Cover Oversight of FBI

This seems to be rapidly headed into NOTFORUM territory. General Ization 22:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Enough said.Phmoreno (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The Fox News piece cited is clearly labeled as opinion, and so is not a reliable source for assertions of fact. The Federalist isn't reliable either. This tends to reinforce what BullRangifer said above. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and "not reliable sources" presented here are to encourage analytical thinking, but I guess that was expecting too much.Phmoreno (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You made exactly the same claim at Talk:Donald Trump-Russia dossier - that you can post various stuff here that would never be allowed into the article, for the sake of "analytical thinking". So I'll make the same reply I did there: The Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Since this kind of "information" cannot be included in the article because it lacks Reliable Sourcing, mentioning it here can only serve two possible purposes: WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:FORUM. Neither is a permissible use of the Talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pagesPhmoreno (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: But repeatedly using it to support your speculations is disruptive. Stop doing it. Now. --NeilN 03:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose adding Congressional subpoena to FBI, Inspector General's investigation of improper conduct in DOJ, FBI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose adding the following facts:

From testimony I watched on live television over the last month, the collusion was between Justice Dept./FBI officials and Clinton/DNC contractor Fusion GPS against Trump. If congress doesn't get the answers from the FBI in response to the months old subpoena, they will proceed with contempt of congress charges. (Christopher Wray said he knew the answers but refused to give them to congress.) Also, Inspector General's investigation of the Justice Dept. and FBI that hasn't been mentioned here.Phmoreno (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Russian Interference in the 2016 elections? - MrX 03:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Belongs in Developments sectionPhmoreno (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ask where it belongs; I asked what it has to do with Russian Interference in the 2016 elections?- MrX 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! Phmoreno, you should read that source . The GOP has been leading you astray, and their propaganda wing, FoxNews, has been repeating their lies, conspiracy theories, and distractions from the real Trump-Russia conspiracy to steal the election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bannon's comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• " Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”"
• "(Bannon) warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”"
• Regarding the Trump Tower meeting: "“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”"
• "“You realise where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”"
• "“The chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero”"

That's from . There's more in there but it's not directly related to this topic. Also . Since this is all relevant to Russian interference, this needs to be included (along with WH's response).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We should also include Bannon's comments about Hillary on her BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bannon didn't work for Hillary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Does he claim inside info, or is this just his opinion? Parts certainly sound like speculation. O3000 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Who, Bannon or Wolff? Note also that the WH is taking the statements at face value and Bannon hasn't bothered to deny it (which he always does when he's accused of something).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Give it a few days to see if any of it sticks. Nothing needs to be included just yet. PackMecEng (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "any of it sticks". This isn't a "developing event". It's a report on What Bannon had already said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What I mean by if any of it sticks, is that it is a developing event. Since it is a comment from a unreleased book. Not much time for annalists or context yet. So until there is more information and if it develops legs then we can take a look. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that Bannon's an expert on treason, or that his use of the term "treason" is anything more than political rhetoric. You can't commit treason unless you are aiding an entity with which the U.S. is at war, which is why no Americans were prosecuted for doing business with Nazi Germany prior to 1941. Last I checked, the U.S. is not at war with Russia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't have to be. And it doesn't have to be. It is still significant that he would use that word (obviously in a colloquial sense, the way people normally use it, not in a lawyer-ly way) to describe the meeting and Don Jr.'s actions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Noop. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/treason SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that much, if any, space should be given to Bannon's spurious opinions in this article. If he was legitimately concerned about treason, he could have said something much earlier. As usual, the media is sensationalizing this nothingburger.- MrX 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the White House's response, I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It's about time that the white house caught up with the rest of the world. This is little more than diversion from a long list of greater issues, like a tax law that favors corporations, money laundering, congressional committee members trying to subvert a criminal investigation, tiny fingers on a large button, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The American public is being played.- MrX 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The comments might deserve to be mentioned in the Trump campaign–Russian meetings article as a "Reaction". _Gravity 21:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If Bannon knew it was treasonous for Trump Jr. to fail to report this to the FBI, then wouldn’t he be treasonous for not reporting treason while working in the WH? This is just Bannon being Bannon. We can’t fall into the trap of repeating such. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Put it in the Bannon article. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

None of this overhyped, over-the-top bluster should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Bannon's comments aren't relevant to this page, as they're his mere opinion. They belong at Fire and Fury (book), and maybe not even on his own biographical page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian which says it saw the book quoting him, says the statement about Trump Jr's meeting with Russian officials is quoted from him. . Even Trump is taking legal action against him. It is likely genuine but the book hasn't been released yet. But the fact pointed out by the sources here is that potentially damaging material against Hillary was offered to Trump campaign in a June 2016 meeting. This is what is reffered to as "unpatriotic" and "treasonous". We should hold off on Bannon's statements until the release of the book. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of someone in the campaign team, it will be considered important. Had it been someone not in Trump's campaign, I doubt it will be. Since we have a commentary and reactions section, I think it should be added. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There are articles where this comment of Bannon's might be added. However, I don't think this article - which is about Russian interference in the election - is the place. Probably Fire and Fury (book) since it is being cited in virtually every article or comment about the book. Possibly the Bannon article. Possibly the Trump campaign-Russian meetings article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The meeting was real, so was the offer. I don't see any harm in a few comments. What's the point in having commentary and reactions if you don't include comments and reactions? As far as notabilty is concerned, it certainly is notable, even to the point of legal action. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be added. for its shows the whole right-wing propaganda of Russian collusion or Trump campaign collusion being a "lie" itself is a lie. It's known Trump Jr tried to access sensitive information from Russia to undermine Hillary. This is "collusion". Why is this story not on the top instead of conclusion of intelligence agencies? Trump Jr's confession and expose of Russia-Trump campaign collusion must be at the top. Even if he didn't receive anything "substantial", he tried to conspire with an enemy government. 103.40.197.145 (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reason why the Trump Tower meeting is not "at the top" is because this is an article about the interference rather than an article about the collusion per se.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

So far I've read WP:OR here about "what Bannon always does" and "how the White House reacts" but is unsourced, and a lot of stuff about "right-wing propaganda", similarly unsourced. Bannon's commentary needs to be treated as WP:BIASED, especially because it's an ongoing dispute between Bannon and his former boss. We're not a newspaper and not on a deadline, nor are we Bannon's publicists. Bannon's already issued retractions about some of his statements regarding Trump Junior, so it's in the interest of the project to allow more time for the story to settle out. If we have comments regarding treason from someone who wasn't just fired by Trump, in WP:RS, THAT we could use - assuming it is WP:BLP-compliant. The Bannon stuff belongs in other articles, as stated above. loupgarous (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Bannon is hardly mentioned in this article. What are you talking about?

(and I still think that Bannon's comments belong here, especially given the widespread coverage in the past few days).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs additional content

Phmoreno (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop immediately archiving discussions

I am interested in seeing what others are saying and do not want these discussions immediately archived.Phmoreno (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that these aren't "discussions" but you just posting your own original research in violation of WP:TALK, archiving is the nice way of doing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not referring to my posts but a couple of other editors expressed their opinions, which were immediately removed. I didn't even get a chance to read all of the comments, but there were some valid points. You are engaging in censorship.Phmoreno (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be because they were not anything more then "Misplaced Pages is biased because it represented a viewpoint I do not agree with". It is not censorship, it is asking people to not make accusations of political bias or try to foist their POV on a page. We go with what RS say, not editors speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ph, why don't you take this to your talk page and then if you come up with any proposed content that's within site policy you can bring the muffins back to the barn. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, for days now you have filled up this talk page with speculation and argumentation and Original Research. The closed discussion above is a perfect example: nothing but "might have", "could have", "if", "maybe". One or two such posts could be forgiven, but your persistence is getting disruptive. Hatting or immediately archiving this kind of stuff has become necessary to keep this talk page focused on what it is supposed to be focused on: improvements to the article based on Reliable Sources. Be glad that people are resolving this disruption of yours by simply moving it out of the way. And if you want to read people's responses, you still can. Anything which has been archived can be found under the archive link at the top of this talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Judging from the warnings on your talk page, this tolerance may not last much longer. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The tolerance is gone.- MrX 23:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

“There's still little evidence that Russia's 2016 social media efforts did much of anything“

Philip Bump at WaPo:

Some quotes:

• hat we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts.
• Of the 30 ads shared by the Democrats, six, viewed 1.2 million times in total, ran in 2015. Only seven ran in the last month of the campaign, totaling about 340,000 views. The ads targeted none of the four closest states in the election — New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — specifically; most were national ad buys. States that were targeted specifically included Texas and New York, neither of which was considered a swing state.
• Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, detailed how unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election. Among the points he made:
  • Maryland was targeted by nearly five times as many ads as was Wisconsin (262 to 55).
  • Thirty-five of the 55 ads targeting Wisconsin ran during the primary.
  • More ads targeted DC than Pennsylvania.
  • A total of $1,979 was spent in Wisconsin — $1,925 of it in the primary.
  • The spending in Michigan and Pennsylvania were $823 and $300, respectively.
  • More of the geographically targeted ads ran in 2015 than in 2016.
• Facebook: Ten million people saw ads run by the Russian agents — but 5.6 million of those views were after the election.
• weets from the Russian accounts … constituted 0.02 percent of the election-related tweets. … If all of the Russian-linked tweets had been dropped on Election Day — closer to the point at which they would have directly helped suppress or boost turnout — they would still only have constituted 0.27 percent of the tweets that day. But they weren’t.
• Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee told CNN he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.
• he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.

Humanengr (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

And?Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In your view, does any/all of the above qualify as RS? Humanengr (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Err, sorry to wikilaywer but as you have not suggested any edit I can neither confirm or deny that the article is an RS for what you want to write. But I can say you have only included one RS in the above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are there more recent RS that counter the above points? Humanengr (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What edit are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A, please format replies correctly so it does not look like I have replied to it already. B. It does not matter if there are any recent RS that counter the claims, they are still only claims. Even your source admits there maybe evidence of which we are not aware yet. Infact these are just counter claims, so the claims are already our there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Re B: Which statement are you referring to with “Even your source admits there maybe evidence of which we are not aware yet.”? Humanengr (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Perhaps, one might argue, there is classified information about Russia’s meddling that suggests a more dramatic problem.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m ok with including that ‘might’ statement along with its continuation: “Perhaps, one might argue, there is classified information about Russia’s meddling that suggests a more dramatic problem. Perhaps. On Thursday morning, though, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee told CNN he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.” or some shortened paraphrase. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The source claims Himes' said that, other sources have slightly different wording, and the implication not that he has not seen any evidence, just that we have already been made aware of any crimes Trump may have committed. Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Per that cite: “Asked if he’s seen evidence of a crime from the Trump campaign, Himes said Thursday that it’s Mueller’s role to investigate crimes, but added he hasn’t ‘seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of,” citing the two guilty pleas and two indictments Mueller has obtained thus far.’ I’m ok with that fuller statement. Humanengr (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not as they are different.Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying you see a substantive difference between the two blockquotea below? AFAICS, the second adds a ref to Mueller, guilty pleas, and indictments. Is that the issue or is it something else? Humanengr (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WaPo: “… Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee told CNN he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.”

The Hill: “Asked if he’s seen evidence of a crime from the Trump campaign, Himes said Thursday that it’s Mueller’s role to investigate crimes, but added he hasn’t ‘seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of,’ citing the two guilty pleas and two indictments Mueller has obtained thus far.”

Humanengr (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Subtly yes. One is worded in a way that can be read as saying that he has not seen much evidence, the other says he has not seen much more (or in other words he has seen more), also he says "I am not sure...". Why (indeed) would we not quote his own words? Also it is clear he is only talking about what the HIC has seen, not Muller (and he makes that very clear). So yes I would argue there is a slight alteration of tone that makes it seem more certain then it is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

His own words: Jim Himes interview with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota:

Camerota: Have you seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign?

Himes: Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. And of course remember, the Congress is not about investigating crimes. The FBI and Robert Mueller are about that, and of course Robert Mueller has secured two guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and from George Papadopoulos, and of course, has indicted two other individuals, and it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet. So of course like a lot of Americans, I am waiting to see whatever else ….

How about if we use that, perhaps with some condensation? Would the condensation below address your concerns?

On December 28, 2017, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee, when asked whether he had “seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign”, said “Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. … f course, remember, … it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet.”

Humanengr (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yo, Humane, Per Facebook: Ten million people saw ads run by the Russian agents — but 5.6 million of those views were after the election. So you now concede that Clinton would have won by 7.4 million popular votes if those pre-election eyeballs hadn't seen the Russian facebook Interference? SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, how can (someone that claims to be) an academic expert on economics fail to understand advertising on such a basic level?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, you're one that clicked a Russian cat video or a poison link. 🙀 🏴‍☠️ 🇷🇺 SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use this as a soapbox or as a forum to discus what other users think, discus the article and how to improve it please.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that they were just sharing a useful source, and highlighting some key pieces of information. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

: How about if we start the ‘Social media and internet trolls’ section with

As of December 28, 2017, per Philip Bump at the Washington Post, “he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.” Earlier assertions included:

Humanengr (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What earlier assertions? Also why have this at the start?Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

By ’earlier assertions’, I was referring to the remainder of the section; at the start as it is a summary statement. Humanengr (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No it is not it is one opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Again: Are there more recent RS that counter the above points? Humanengr (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

We do not need any, this is not a case of "ha! here is all the proof you need". This does not disprove the allegations, as it is an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WaPo classifies this article not as ‘opinion’ but as ‘Politics:Analysis”. If there are no more recent RS that counter the points of the article, then this is the most up-to-date. Prior, less-informed material is outdated. Humanengr (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about what the Russians did to interfere with the election. The social media onslaught was one of their initiatives. Whether it WORKED or not, or how well, has not been evaluated and so it is not within the scope of this article. For that matter, we also don't know if their other efforts (such as releasing the DNC and Clinton emails, or hacking into state election databases) were or were not determinative in the outcome of the election, and will probably never know. The social media stuff was part of their campaign and belongs in this article; User:Humanengr, if you meant to suggest it be removed, that idea is a non-starter. Thank you for now coming up with an actual proposed edit to the article - that's what we are supposed to be doing here - but I oppose this suggestion. It's one person's opinion; are there any other sources saying the same thing? (We do have a requirement for multiple reliable sources, especially for anything controversial.) In any case, a disclaimer or dismissive comment should certainly not be put at the BEGINNING of the section, as if to negate everything that follows. Can you come up with an "on the other hand Philip Bump says" type sentence to put at the end of the section? --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that the ‘Social media and internet trolls’ section be removed. Are there any more recent sources that counter the points in Bump’s article? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:Whether it WORKED or not, or how well, has not been evaluated... In fact, it has been, just never (to my knowledge) by anyone qualified to come to a trustworthy conclusion. I've yet to hear a real political science expert discuss whether or not it had any effect. The consensus among reporters, PR reps for the gubmint and talking heads has generally been that it had absolutely no effect on the election whatsoever, but I personally (along with many, many others) find that excruciatingly hard to believe, as it contradicts hundreds of years of political science research (and seems a little self-serving; accusing the Russians of not accomplishing anything). That being said, one hting we can know for sure is that we can never truly know exactly what effect it had, because we'd need to compare it to the same exact election, only without the interference in order to draw any such conclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The consensus among reporters, PR reps for the gubmint and talking heads has generally been that it had absolutely no effect on the election whatsoever, That has not been my reading. Not at all. The consensus IMO is that it may or may not have had an effect but it is impossible to know, since people vote in secret and we don't know why they vote the way they do. I think Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight published an analysis saying that the Comey comments about Clinton were responsible for the outcome, but not many other commentators accepted it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I should possibly have said "the message I hear the most from..." rather than "the consensus of..." I haven't heard as much doubt as you have, but what you're saying isn't all that far from what I meant (even if I didn't quite say it right). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. Of course the degree to which Russia interfered in the election is relevant to an article called "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Furthermore whether or not any of their actions could have been reasonably expected to interfere with the elections is relevant to whether or not there was any intention to interfere. When you introduce this type of objection it delays discussion about the sources, their reliability and the weight of their opinions and prevents improvement of the article. TFD (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Bump's view: Undue. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Humanengr, will you please stop claiming that this one analysis supersedes all previous analysis - unless we can come up with "more recent" (i.e., within the last two weeks) sources reiterating what they have been saying all along? Are they supposed to provide weekly updates? We do not have a rule here that the most recent report overrules all previous reports - particularly not when it contradicts all the previous material. As I asked above, you might want to suggest a sentence to add at the end of the section, summarizing Bump's analysis. If you can propose something like that, we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, please drop it because this is getting you (and us) nowhere. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, the issue is whether there is -any- RS that counters Himes point that, as of December 28, 2017, the House intelligence committee has not “seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of”, i.e., other than the two guilty pleas and two indictments. Can you identify such? tia, Humanengr (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The article's not really about the extent to which the ads achieved success or not. The inclusion of ads depends on whether Russia tried to interfere through them. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The nature and effectiveness of social media targeting and its possible effect on electoral outcomes is full of complex technical factors that will need to be studied and assessed by competent experts. Bump is not a competent expert. And in this column, his discourse doesn't rise above the level of glib chatter at the New Year's eve puncbowl. Sorry, not only is there nothing definitive here. It's worse -- just meaningless.-- In WP terms it's WP:UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any RS disputing Bump’s statements? Humanengr (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Recapitulating: The discussion above brings out two points for inclusion — that, as of December 28, 2017:

1. “he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.”
2. The House intelligence committee “has not seen much evidence of any criminal collusion” beyond “the two guilty pleas and two indictments Mueller has obtained thus far.”

No one has offered RS to counter the above. Humanengr (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What are we talking about here? The social media strategy's effectiveness (or not), which is the apparent subject of this discussion section, or the evidence (or not) of criminal collusion, which seems completely unrelated to the listed topic, but which in any case means nothing because the evidence is being collected in secret? You do seem to have boiled down the social media issue to a single sentence, which is helpful. Can you clarify what you think should be put in the article? Are you proposing this direct quote from WaPo, or a paraphrase? --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You’re right that the discussion content doesn’t match the title. The latter, which is the title of Bump’s article, also doesn’t fully cover its content. Apologies for the misdirection.

While the title of Bump’s article focuses on effectiveness of the social media campaign, the content seems to speak more to how “minute” and “unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election”. And then the article also brings in that quote from Himes re collusion.

Thx for your patience and prompts. Hopefully the above helps, and I’ll give further thought on how to proceed. Humanengr (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Electoral interference

Concerning all the talk around Trump Tower meeting with the Russian lawyer and officials. The article states that US intelligence concluded that Russia electorally interfered ie attempting to influence the elections.

But it is known about Trump Jr that he received an email from Rob Goldstone, who set up the meeting, about it being a part of Russian government wanting to help Trump in elections.

Wouldn't this in itself be seen as interference and trying to influence the elections? Of course this is a statement by someone else, not direct admission, even if he might have organised the meeting. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

High bias level

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has a high bias level, starting with not mentioning that Clapper backpedaled strongly from his "17 agencies" claim.

It nowhere cites that the amount spent on things like Facebook ads was tiny, that Russian-ran Facebook groups and pages targeted both Trump and Clinton and more.

It also nowhere sites places like Consortium News, which has tested download speeds and shown that Russians couldn't have done an online international hack of the DNC emails, leaving the logical conclusion that they were internally stolen. Consortium News was found by former AP investigative journalist Robert Parry and is advised on issues like this by VIPS, a group of retired intelligence community professionals. Its source value level is quite high.

47.182.36.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A source for the claim Clapper said 17 agencies and then backpedaled please? Also, a download speed proves the Russians could not have done it, seriously someone has claimed that, we need a source for this too.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The download speeds is referring to the discredited VIPS report covered by The Nation, which has been discussed exhaustively on various talk pages. Consortium News itself is not a reliable source. Ready for archive.Geogene (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Facebook ads are being discussed above. How is Clapper's claim relevant (even if it's true that Clapper "backpedaled")? We don't seem to mention "17 intelligence agencies" in the article. I don't whether The Nation article has been discredited – what happened to the internal review? However, if VIPS report is not covered in DNC leak subarticle, that's an indicator that it should not be covered here. Politrukki (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note - Per my comments below, I am restoring this section after it was removed by SPECIFICO and Geogene (with an objection by A Quest for Knowledge). MelanieN I will defer to your judgement if you disagree but I don't believe it's appropriate to simply remove this post, since it does make a few specific points, even if it is unlikely anything will come of it. -Darouet (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we're hatting now. So are we going to hat this or are we going to bicker about it for another three months? I would hat it myself, but last time I hatted something, that hatting was quickly reverted by an admin. Then it went off to Jimbo Talk to fester for days. I forget how that turned out. Geogene (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geogene: I would recommend that you not hat or archive this post. I am not demanding the IPs specific requests be implemented, but I believe that some of their concerns are valid. Simply removing talk page posts that one is unhappy about is inappropriate. -Darouet (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If the OP doesn't respond within a reasonable about of time (~a day) I would support simply archiving the section. No sense wasting precious talk page space if the OP won't even answer clarifying questions or substantiate their assertions.- MrX 17:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A two or three day wait could be better. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Nobody's internet connection is that slow.- MrX 17:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that some of their concerns are valid. Simply removing talk page posts that one is unhappy about is inappropriate. First off, after all the clear delineation by half a dozen editors as to the nature of the disruption/trolling, it is not civil to suggest that the consensus of your fellow editors is to remove posts based on a shared personal preference. Now, if you want to change the current consensus to hat this disruption (whether immediately or in a day or two) then the only effective course would be for you to make a constructive editing suggestion instead of to instigate another pointless meta-discussion about disruption. We're all earseyeballs. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I asked for evidence that the IP was a troll / SPA / meatpuppet, and didn't receive any. Do you think that my comment above is uncivil, but that MelanieN's comment below, addressing you, is civil? We DON’T delete other people’s comments because we disagree with them, or because the same points have been made before, or because they are not supported by Reliable Sources, or because they are Opinion or Original Research. User:Politrukki, I’m talking to you. IMO those are not valid reasons for instant-archiving, either - especially if a discussion is ongoing with more than one person participating. User:SPECIFICO, User:Geogene, I’m talking to you. (We did make a bit of an exception recently, instant-archiving a whole series of repetitive posts from Phmoreno that were getting disruptive.) I'm making the same point exactly. I would appreciate if you would WP:AGF for my comments here: at least some small amount of that is required to maintain a collegial environment on this talk page. -Darouet (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, the IPs/SPAs should at least read the archive before they pointlessly revisit things that have been argued for months. Surely you will admit that? You, and others, but especially you, are casting WP:ASPERSIONS when you say that this old garbage gets deleted because I disagree with them (and yes I am being named above). I don't appreciate that, but I'll just return the favor by saying it's not unlikely that you are taking a "free speech" position to the talk page because that transparently benefits what appears to be your own, not exactly mainstream, POV. Geogene (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

For clarity and for my understanding, by ‘mainstream’, were you indicating ‘Mainstream media’? Humanengr (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, Do you think that my comment above is uncivil, but that MelanieN's comment below, addressing you, is civil?. Yessir, ma'am. If you want more detail, I'd be pleased to reply elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If nobody is looking for a dramafest it's time to move on. -Darouet (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you want to move on. Weird, because you've been throwing my username around a lot over the last several hours, and I've mostly been ignoring it. Darouet, why don't you think new users should be expected to search the talk page archives? And, are you sure you don't have an agenda here of your own? Geogene (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't expect an IP, unless they're a prolific IP, or a new user to understand the talk page archives. -Darouet (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Does that mean that the rest of us will waste an unlimited number of volunteer hours endlessly rehashing the same issues that we already know will not improve the article? And that good faith IPs will also waste many hours discussing something with the false hope that it might ever be added to the article? Not only does that strike me as profoundly inefficient, it also strikes me as fundamentally unfair to everyone involved, particularly established users but also whatever IP/SPAs are here with the right motivation. Except the trolls that come to talk pages to prove a point, of course. That will give them what they want. I'm still trying to understand what the benefit of not immediately closing known dead ends is, other than for the trolls. Geogene (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Most talk page entries on most articles are inactive, and on big articles, they're eventually archived. Here, 90% of editor bytes (and time) have come from the effort to (inappropriately) remove this talk page entry. Removing it without just cause sets a bad precedent. I do understand your frustration (I mean this sincerely), but just let it go, for all of our sakes. -Darouet (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you get the memo, Darouet? Drop it. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Deal with VIPS in the article so this doesn't come up repeatedly

Regarding the recent reverted VIPS post.

I made s similar post about the VIPS report recently because I was new to this article and hadn't seen it mentioned. Rather than dismissing the VIPS report, it should be addressed in the article, and if it has been debunked then say why. That will deal with two of the three likely scenarios: Russian Intelligence (SVR), inside job, mercenary hacker(s).Phmoreno (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Every conspiracy theory doesn't merit debunking in article space. That's Whataboutism. And just because various IPs show up on talk pages doesn't mean that every argument we've ever had previously needs to be re-opened. Geogene (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The "VIPS Report" is fake news garbage and doesn't belong on either the article or the talk page on Misplaced Pages. You can look up the extensive discussions of it, but don't put this stuff back on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

VIPS has come up here at this talk page a number of times as far as I can tell:

• "Committee_to_Investigate_Russia"

and in a related post at RSN:

• "A_Leak_or_a_Hack?_A_Forum_on_the_VIPS_Memo"_Fake_News?_Is_The_Nation_a_Fake_News_Source?

Binney has come up numerous times at this talk page: , , , , , , , , , .

There was a time when VIPS/Binney was included in this article; I'm not sure when those references were removed. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. @Phmoreno, SPECIFICO, Geogene, and A Quest For Knowledge: the archive-revert-delete sequence has removed the IP's statement both from the talk page here, and from the archive. I don't think things should be archived so quickly, but deleting good faith comments from talk+archive both is even worse. Pinged editors and @MelanieN: I don't know if there's a way of fixing the delete? -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for showing up with a little jab here. I don't see what you're talking about. Get your facts documented, then return with info so it can be addressed. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'jab?" In this edit sequence, you 1-click archived a new talk page discussion, AQFK reverted you, and Geogene deleted the discussion. As a result the discussion is no longer here at talk, nor is it archived. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It means, if you see an obviously inadvertent editing artifact, just fix it. Don't pop in to complain and recite long lists of whatnot when we're trying to keep the article talk page on focus in the presence of an obstinate SPA. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The "long lists of whatnot " is a list of discussions that you and Geogene are supposedly referencing. Because you didn't link them, quote from them, or note specific outcomes, I've listed them above. Don't be so pointlessly rude.

I'll restore the discussion section that you and Geogene deleted. If someone wants to re-archive it, they may do that. -Darouet (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

About deleting or archiving other people's posts

OK, hold it. Let’s agree on some rules here. For starters, we do NOT delete other people’s comments at a talk page unless they are 1) information/commentary about a living subject which violates BLP (and that doesn’t just mean saying something unkind or critical; it means actual accusations, vicious namecalling, that kind of thing) or 2) blatant personal attacks or 3) copyright infringement. Other cases can include things like obvious nonsense, fly-by commentary about the subject, or posts by proven sockpuppets.

We DON’T delete other people’s comments because we disagree with them, or because the same points have been made before, or because they are not supported by Reliable Sources, or because they are Opinion or Original Research. User:Politrukki, I’m talking to you. IMO those are not valid reasons for instant-archiving, either - especially if a discussion is ongoing with more than one person participating. User:SPECIFICO, User:Geogene, I’m talking to you. (We did make a bit of an exception recently, instant-archiving a whole series of repetitive posts from Phmoreno that were getting disruptive.)

So what should we do with comments or discussions that are veering way off into Original Research, or opinion (per WP:FORUM), or mild personal attacks, or going over and over material that has been discussed before? The best thing to do is hat them, with an appropriate comment as to why. If there is active discussion we should wait until it dies down before hatting or archiving.

Discussing what to include in the article is what talk pages are for. That doesn’t mean hammering on the same points over and over or refusing to accept consensus, which in individual cases can become disruptive, but please let that kind of label be applied by someone who is not involved in the disagreement; avoid name-calling and accusing as part of an argument.

Please don’t respond to this comment of mine with a whole bunch of arguments about or excuses for past behavior. Let’s just agree to follow these guidelines in the future. OK? --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Are these written or unwritten policies? Geogene (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't wikilawyer, please. They are advice, offered because of recent problems at this article. Do you think you can abide by these guidelines? --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice, that's different. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate this. We need less ownership on this talk page and in the article. Instant-archiving discussions just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is disruptive. Opening simultaneous discussions for same topic is considered disruptive and it's okay to close a redundant discussion while pointing editors to existing discussion. This talk page rarely reaches any consensus (and sometimes when someone says there was consensus for X, that's not true at all) and we currently have seventeen archived talk pages so it's natural that some conversations are rehashed from time to time. And everybody please remember that consensus can change.

However, I'm flabbergasted that you chose to restore one purely disruptive talk page post which had nothing to do with article improvement, and which literally said that a living person, who has not been convicted, committed a crime. You reinstated an obvious BLP violation only to hat that post. That's mighty bureaucratic. Yet you chose not to restore a discussion (now restored by Darouet), which was about article improvement? Politrukki (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, maybe this tweak will mollify your concerns. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

From the BLP point of view that's better, but your comment is still soapboxing and inappropriate to this talk page. In the long run it doesn't matter how much you add hedging language if the comment is inappropriate in the context. You did not bring up any sources that support/contradict Himes, directly or indirectly. It's still not too late delete your post and come up with better thought arguments that would help us to decide whether Himes's comments should be included or omitted. Politrukki (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Which one, the one where he says he has not seen much more evidence for Trumps criminal involvement then the US public, but then he has also might not have seen all the evidence?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that we have 17 talk page archives proves that this talk page is a huge time sink that is not being handled appropriately. Letting it be a perpetual open mic night by allowing any and all single-use IPs to publish screeds here--whether those screeds are on a white background, a grey background, or collapsed but still easily located--is not going to improve this. Whereas, deleting/archiving creates a disincentive. It doesn't affect the article because if Breitbart isn't a reliable source today, it's not going to become a reliable source because a bunch of right-wing SPAs spent 18 months talking everyone into a stupor here. Although that might actually get it into the article, once everybody's fed up with dealing with them and there is no way to put a brake on the discussion. There is no logical basis for not deleting or archiving repetitive, time-wasting posts. It's just overhead that nobody should have to put up with. Geogene (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I was going to agree with Mel, until this. There is an issue here with (what are in effect) meatpuppets coming here and starting up the same damn conversation we have had 15 times before. But at the same time it is against the rules to delete another users posts without good reason.

I suggest therefore that this is taken to a more appropriate noticeboard as this affects not just this page but many, and may need a rules change.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Serious registered users get a lot of slack here. I don't see any problem hatting or archiving obvious SPA or sock disruption. I did not think it constructive for Darouet to parachute in when he appeared to deny that key distinction. SPECIFICO talk 10:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN, Geogene, and SPECIFICO. Rambling forum talk by editors posting in good faith should preferably be hatted if the comments are not leading to specific article improvements. Unambiguous trolling, gibberish, and rants should simply be deleted per WP:TPG and WP:DENY. This includes deleting the more subtle trolling from users who have been repeatedly warned not to use the talk page for idle speculation.- MrX 13:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

MrX the IP's post was short, and did raise a number of specific concerns, some of which I and plenty of editors here have agreed with. I didn't find their post disruptive, and unless there's evidence they are a sock or a "meatpuppet," as Slatersteven suggests, their post shouldn't simply be removed. -Darouet (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Also MrX I agree that there are posts that can be deleted per WP:TPG and WP:DENY, and have supported that on other pages to protect them from known trolls or socks. But deleting reasonable comments that you disagree with is a step too far. -Darouet (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

My comments were general. IPs are people too. I also agree with Slatersteven, whose comment I did not previously see.. - MrX 14:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

None of what Darouet said "sounds reasonable" however. Darouet has not been working on the "issues" (if any) that the SPA's keep bringing up here. Then he accuses others of bad faith archiving and hatting, calling the trolls' comments "reasonable" after allowing as how, well, he agrees with them despite never trying to get them into well-sourced condition that would support article content. And now -- now we have another stupid drawn out sump of a thread on this already messed-up creature we call a talk page. Nothing reasonable to see here. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to ask that comments or sections — made by anyone who isn't known to be a troll or SPA — be preserved. The IP made a few specific critiques that relate to article content, which certainly can be acted upon to improve the article, even if that's unlikely to happen. What evidence do you have that the IP is a troll or an SPA? -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. SPECIFICO are you sure I accused you of "bad faith archiving and hatting?" And is it really so hard to use the personal pronoun "they" or "he/she," as I've requested of you several times in the past? -Darouet (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, folks, I didn’t make this stuff up. Please see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments. You can delete “prohibited material such as comments by banned users, libel, legal threats, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies.” You can delete “harmful posts including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism”. You can delete “gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), and test edits.” It does NOT say you can delete off-topic posts; it says you should deal with off-topic posts by hatting them. Likewise, the mere fact that a comment comes from an IP does not mean it should be deleted, particularly not if other users have responded and a discussion has developed.

And yes, Politrukki, it is OK to hat redundant discussions while directing people to the primary discussion. Slatersteven, feel free to raise this discussion at a more general location, but they will most likely just point you to the guidelines I linked above. SPECIFICO, your repeated personal criticism of Darouet is inappropriate. Such talk only leads to counter-accusations and degrades the tone of the page. Please discuss issues and not the behavior of other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I've contributed as much substantive improvement to this article as anyone in the Project. I don't have a problem calling out sockpuppetry, trolling, and vandalism. Nobody deleted nothing for its being IP or being "wrong" or being disagreeable. Are we talking about whether, after a thread has been appropriately hatted, per your advice, it was then a violation to archive it? Seems a minimal distinction to me. Melanie, I note that nobody challenges your advice, but I think it's fair to say that the opinions of less active, less experienced, less productive editors than yourself is counterproductive here. Your participation has been key to whatever orderly progress we've made on this article, but I think we'd all be better off without carping or paratrooper appearances without any avenue to article improvement. I took some care not to make any personal reference to Darouet, but to address he/she's substantive points. To the extent I failed, you are quite right it doesn't belong here and I am pleased to apologize. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I Think I said that id users think this is an issue it is not for this talk page. I think I also said that in this instance I had no major issue with deleting or hatting these posts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed article restructuring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article has gone beyond its title by including the investigation of Trump and associates. That is a separate topic, already hatnoted. There is no hard evidence of that Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with Russia. Trump campaign links to Russia are also covered by a hatnote. The focus of this article should be on the key points of the cited intelligence reports. The intelligence reports cover most of these points, but there is room for improvement. Possible motives mentioned in the reports need elaboration and should be put into a more coherent narrative. The extraneous content dilutes the important points of the intelligence reports. Background on Russian intelligence should reference how they operate would help the reader. For example, a hat note to Yuri Bezmenov.

The main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. Only about 15% of time, money and manpower is spent on espionage and such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures,…or psychological warfare. Yuri Bezmenov

I came here looking for technical information about how the hacks were linked to Russia and was disappointed in the explanation and distracted by a whole bunch of sideline issues. It is vitally important to have this as a solid background for articles related to the Mueller and congressional investigations, and it should be written so that it is not repeatedly accused of being slanted. The whole affair has helped Russia in its strategy of creating internal division, now aided by articles like this one. I urge you to pay attention to Yuri Bezmenov.Phmoreno (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Trey Gowdy and others have stated this in committee hearings.
2. [https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

And a fair chunk of this is soapboxing, it does not matter (and we do not care) why you came here, discus changes to the article only.

As to the rest. It is irrelevant how the KGB operates (assuming any of the claims are even real). What is (and is only) relevant would be if RS said they were not even capable of these operations (and the hacks are not the only interference).

There may be room for expansion of any specific allegations and motives, care to suggest an edit?Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, no Trump is not irrelevant, Trump and his associates actions (and allegations as well as their knowledge of what went on) against them are relevant. And it does not matter what one senator says, he is not the sole authority or arbiter of the truth, nor is he even part of the investigative team.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This time the burden of proof is on you. Cite me a RS that contains hard evidence (paper, email, text, video) that Trump or his associates colluded with Russia.Phmoreno (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As we are not saying there was conclusion I do not have to provide RS supporting a claim we do not make.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, that's not the way it works here. You're still not getting it. We have rules and policies. You don't get to make up your own. You keep trying to right great wrongs and place truth over verifiability. ("Truth" is a very subjective and debatable thing, hence we steer away from it as policy.)

You must get used to asking: "What do RS say, regardless of the subject, true, false, or imaginary?" THAT is what we document. If you keep repeating these non policy-based arguments, your failure to show evidence of a positive learning curve will doom you because you show a lack of competence. We don't keep such editors around for long, because they are not here to build the encyclopedia. They create disruption and are time sinks.

We couldn't give a flying f@#k if there is or is not collusion (well, personally we do... ), we just document what RS say about it, regardless of whether or not there is any collusion, and regardless of whether or not there is evidence for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think the main point that the OP missed is that this article is about the interference, not the report on the interference. That means that this article must cover a wide swatch of politics and intelligence subjects pertaining to it in order to provide encyclopedic coverage. We can't cover the interference without also covering the links between the Trump campaign and Russia. We can't cover it without covering the various parties involved, or the events surrounding it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Until you can somehow show that Trump or any associates interfered with the election, that should only have a minimal mention here. The coverage in this article should be limited to:

• What was hacked and what was released
• How we know the Russian govt. was involved
• What were their motives
• What were the effects
• Main article: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials hatnote with introductory paragraph
• Main article: Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) hatnote with introductory paragraph
• any other appropriate hatnotes

These changes will make this article more stable and minimize administrative involvement. There are at least three other articles and timelines on this topic and I don't know that anyone is keeping them all in agreementPhmoreno (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. An important aspect of the Russian interference is the question of whether they did or did not have assistance from Americans. That is legitimate material for this article. 1) We have not claimed that there was or there wasn't such assistance - "proof" is a matter for law enforcement - but we have included instances that deserve to be examined. They are part of the story. 2) As for how we know it was the Russians, the evidence has mostly not been released because it is classified. (Releasing it would only tell the Russians how to avoid being detected next time.) So we cite a "who says so" type attribution, citing the American intelligence agencies, in the very first sentence of the article, and continuing in other places throughout the article. 3) As for Yuri Bezmenov, his information is good for nothing except OR and SYNTH. His personal knowledge of Russia and the KGB ended 40 years ago when he defected, and he reportedly died 25 years ago. 4) As for "making this article more stable", it has been stable in its current format for more than a year. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

1) Whether or not the Russians had assistance from Americans should be moved to Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) as background, along with firing of Comey. 2)The ARS Tecnnica and some of the other links in the Forensic analysis section provide details that do not appear in the section text 3)Bezmenov's insight are the key to understanding today's politics. In his explanation of the process of internally conquering a nation he explained that it took several generations. His explanation was brilliantly prophetic. (I don't remember which of his several videos that was in.)Phmoreno (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I also fail to see why this would "make this article more stable and minimize administrative involvement". I do however think there may be a valid reason for trimming all the material bout Trumpite links. It does seem to be to be a tad overlong, we do afterall have an article on this, so one paragraph on each case should be enough.Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's true that the Michael Flynn section is too long and should be trimmed. Same with the Peter Smith section. All of the other "contacts" seem to be limited to a paragraph each already. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As said, mention of Bezmenov is OR/SYNTH. We aren’t writing an essay – we’re writing an encyclopedia article using RS. Frankly, I think ARS Technica should be avoided. They’re fine for discussing technology; but their biases show through in political/legal/social subject areas. (At least that’s my biased opinion.) As for trimming, most heavily edited articles could benefit from a trim. O3000 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Bezmanov?? - Why am I not surprised? Bezmanov is a kookmuffin. No more OR, please. SPECIFICO talk

As for Bezmenov, that was my only source for understanding Russian intelligence strategy. If you have a better one please recommend it.Phmoreno (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, where do we discus Americans aiding the Russians? Also ARS Tecnnica is not a forensic laboratory (they are an IT magazine) and their evidence is not "forensic" as it is based solely on publicly available informational (also what ARS Tecnnica article, this one ?). Bezmenov is not talking about the interference, it is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The ARS Technica reference I am referring to has been in this article for some time, but I was just using that one as an example because it is a summary. All of those existing references need to be studied in detail to write a better narrative for someone wanting an in depth explanation. Phmoreno (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's remove it. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, let's not. It's a secondary source.Phmoreno (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a clear or well-thought-out proposal. Neutrality 02:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a better article that highlights the known facts and minimizes the speculation, in keeping with the article title.Phmoreno (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that there is no consensus in this discussion to "restructure" the article - or if you prefer, "propose a better article." This idea has received no support. I suggest you stop pushing it and move on. --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed there is no evidence of the Trump campaign having colluded with Russia. The Clinton campaign however...? As for CNN, Joy Behar or others prematurely hooping over nothing burgers? I don't know how that should be handled in this article, if at all. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware that the non-existence of evidence of collusion has been established as fact. Perhaps you can enlighten us with some sources?- MrX 23:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources have not presented any evidence yet, so we have nothing to put in this article. It is very difficult to objectively prove a negative. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I hate to be that guy, but I hope you do realize that the fact that something hasn't been reported doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.- MrX 23:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"...the fact that something hasn't been reported doesn't mean that it doesn't exist." Trying to remember, what was it that Rachel Maddow said, when she was told that the dossier didn't have any proven dirt on Trump? something to the words of - 'rumours not needing facts, to be true.' GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand, and your points are becoming increasingly divergent, so I'm not sure there is anything to understand. Oh well.- MrX 01:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): “Only because the collusion case hasn't been made. I mean keep in mind, two of these folks you just showed (Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), they were talking about collusion this time six months ago but there's no evidence of that so now they pivoted to obstruction of justice. It's an interesting legal argument.”

1. ^ No Evidence of Collusion So Democrats Have Pivoted to Obstruction of Justice
2. Full Clapper: No Evidence Collusion Between of Trump and Russia, ‘’NBC News’’
3. World Affairs #Election2016 There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion

I see that we have had a busy day of NOTFORUM posts advocating conspiracy theories. Geogene (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please explain your comment. I don't see how it is applicable.Phmoreno (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me with this? You're actually citing opinions that are 6-9 months old, and a political sound bite from an unusable source? Gimme a break or at least a piece of that Kit Kat bar.- MrX 01:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Dec. 5, 2017 was not 6-9 months ago. Just shows that there was evidence at the start of the investigation and there is no evidence today, or we would have already heard about it. I am pointing out that the way this article is written is pushing a conspiracy theory.Phmoreno (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless you're wiretapping Mueller's office, that's completely false. The article is not pushing a "conspiracy theory", it's pushing the viewpoints found in the bulk of reliable sourcing. You're trying to get us to ignore sourcing based on some really shoddy logic, and I hope somebody hats this soon before any more time is wasted on it. Geogene (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Gowdy, in that transparently political interview, actually contradicted himself. His claim that there is no evidence (I guess because, per him, the FBI and DOJ haven't turned it over to his committee) is not especially convincing. How about a reliable secondary source that states, in its own voice, that there is no evidence. - MrX 02:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources that show hard evidence of collusion do not exist in this article. Until someone provides one, this article is outside the scope of its title.Phmoreno (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Aren't there a lot of reliable sources discussing the possibility of collusion? Geogene (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Man, we really need one of those "perennial issues" templates on this talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, this continued insistence on a point that literally no one else has agreed with is getting disruptive. You have been warned already that this kind of behavior could lead to sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I am giving up on this post but want to correct the record. I did have one supporter User:GoodDay. And I do not think I was the one being disruptive, but rather those who made their usual attacks on sources. (Gowwdy makes the statement at 3:50 and that is a secondary source Real Clear Politics as requested). However, I am abandoning any more commenting here. If the best solution anyone can come up with is "perennial issues" tag, it's obvious I'm just wasting my time. Apologies for the inconvenience.Phmoreno (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

chronological order: by when something was reported, or by when it happened?

I was starting out to trim the Michael Flynn section but I immediately ran across a question. I've encountered the same issue at other articles so let me get some opinions. Right now the various items in the Flynn section are listed in order by when they were reported. (March 2017, May 2017, etc.) It seems to me it would make more sense to list them in order by when they happened. (December 2015, December 2016, "months before" December 2016, etc.) It's been in the "when reported" format for a long time so I don't want to change it unless there is consensus to do so. What do you all think? --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would go with the latter, this is an encyclopedia not chronological wall chart.Slatersteven (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. It's only like that because current event articles tend to form as accretions. Geogene (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• The latter is best, although the reader should also know when things became public. Neutrality 02:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Definitely by occurrence, IOW chronological. The time of the discovery or report should be evident from the source, or if necessary, from the text. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• When it happened is the most clear way of setting up the page to read from my view. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. That's what I think too. I'll work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I trimmed the Flynn section and rearranged it to chronological order. I also rearranged and trimmed the Peter Smith material and moved it from a subsection into the general "other associates" section. I also expanded the Papadopoulos material and moved it into a subsection of its own, due to his importance as the trigger for the FBI investigation and the first guilty plea. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Recapping from above § on WaPo’s Philip Bump on social media

From discussion above, the following summarizes re Russia social media activity and strategy:

Philip Bump, analyst for the Washington Post, wrote on December 28, 2017 “hat we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts. … he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.” WaPo

Any objections to adding as last para in Social media section? Humanengr (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Show 2-3 third party sources that cite this (WP:DUEWEIGHT) and change the partial quote to a well-written paraphrase, and I would probably support it.- MrX 04:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX, So far found this from Salon:

The article focuses on “what we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts.”

The ballyhooed Facebook ads were notably not targeted to be seen in swing states, the piece by Post journalist Philip Bump reports. As for the much-hyped tweets, they were smaller than minuscule in quantity compared to overall election-related tweets.

But don’t expect the fervent story about Russian manipulation of social media to fade away anytime soon. At this point, the Russiagate atmosphere has become so toxic, with incessant propaganda, credulity, fear-laced conformity and partisan opportunism, that basic logic often disintegrates.

One of the weirdest aspects of claims that Russia undermined the election with social media has involved explaining away the fact that few of the ads and posts in question actually referred to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or the election. Instead, we’re told, the wily Russians tried to help Trump by inflaming social divisions such as racial tensions. It’s a rampant storyline (rendered here by NBC News political director Chuck Todd) that’s reminiscent of the common claim during the civil rights movement that “outside agitators,” such as Russian-directed reds, were inflaming and exploiting racial tensions in the South.

@MelanieN, how do you view this given the earlier discussion? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, keep working on it. By the way, my understanding is that Salon is not considered a very reliable source. Feel free to check WP:RSN to make sure I'm right about that.- MrX 15:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I had checked WP:RS; ref 6 — a Salon story — actually critiques Junk food news and is cited for such purpose. Humanengr (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX, see also HuffPo. Does the following suffice?

As of December 28, 2017, the collected public evidence did not support the allegation that the Russians “executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory”. As an analyst for the Washington Post concluded “hat we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself, and minute in the context of election social media efforts.”

Humanengr (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Washington Post would be a good source and the contributed article by Norman Solomon would be supportive.- MrX 21:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thx for that, MrX. And to MelanieN for earlier discussion. Humanengr (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Twitter and Facebook did very poor job with investigating these claims . But I do not think this should be described in a lot of detail on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You state that as fact. It was from a report commissioned by Dems. Humanengr (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why it's effectiveness is relevant, it does not matter how effective I am at breaking the law, only that I am breaking it).Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

On that criterion, I’m ok with cutting the article down to “U.S. said Russia broke a U.S. law; Russian denied.” I note, e.g., the 2nd sentence of the body begins “They said Putin's motives were a vendetta against Hillary Clinton and the desire to foment global distrust of the U.S.” Should we start a thread on that? Humanengr (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no substantive objections … Humanengr (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is undue and SYNTHy SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for inclusion of this material, so why are you adding this in? (Also, the use of rollback here was an accident, I meant to merely undo).Volunteer Marek (talk)

@Volunteer Marek, there was extensive earlier discussion; all substantive objections on this material have been addressed. The only substantive opposer, MrX now concurs. To say there is no consensus is not correct. Do you have any specific objection? Humanengr (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This kind of passive aggressive interaction is unconstructive, but when you use it as a pretext to move over to the article page and mangle the text, then you have crossed the line to disruption. I see that you preemptively tried to insert this in the article. CLUE: When you have "consensus" it will be obvious -- you won't have to put your nose to the wind like a foxhound to sense what others cannot fathom. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any RS disputing Bump’s statements? Humanengr (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

We dont need any, unless he is a world renowned expert. Otherwise this is just one correspondents opinion. Also (as I have already pointed out) he slightly misrepresents at least one persons opinions. So why should we assume he is any ore accurate with anything else he says?Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, are you referring to this edit? This is not the Himes material we were discussing earlier. Humanengr (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your criterion would seem to delete most or all ostensible RS used here. Aside from that, 1) Bump has been cited previously in this article; 2) WaPo, an ‘RS’, did not publish this as ‘Opinion’ but as ‘Analysis’. Which WP policy supports your selective application? Humanengr (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You asked if any of the points had been refuted, I pointed out he altered a quote. As to the other points, as he provides no evidence to support them then they do not disprove those points, thus there is no need to provide counter points. Nor does it matter if we use him as a source, it is what we are saying that matters. Also we only have to say "it had little effect according to..." if we also say"It had a majuor impact according to..." do we?21:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Bump cites “A little-noticed statement from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, detailed how unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election.” Humanengr (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, re the Himes material, you did not respond to my proposed edit in view of your request for “his own words”. Humanengr (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

And re your “One is worded in a way that can be read as saying that he has not seen much evidence, the other says he has not seen much more (or in other words he has seen more)”, I’m not sure how you get that from:

WaPo: “… he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.” vs The Hill: “… he hasn’t ‘seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of”

“much” vs “a lot” “the American people weren’t/aren’t already aware of”

Kindly tell me how can the first but not the second be read “he has not seen much evidence”?

I tried to accommodate your objection in discussion above; you didn’t respond; and now on closer examination, a question arises as to your reading. Humanengr (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

And started this one up, maybe if you had kept this discussion in one place it might make it easier to respond. Also this is your new suggestion is it not? Also I note you left out "I am not sure".In addition it leaves it the factoid he also said that he thought there was more evidence to come. You asked for proof that the article was flawed, I have provided some.

In addition you have not made a case as to why we need this, what does is it a counter point to. If it is not what does it add to our understanding of what happened. Does it materially add to our knowledge of what the Russians did? Why (simply) do we need this mans opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Re your: “And started this one up, maybe if you had kept this discussion in one place it might make it easier to respond. Also this is your new suggestion is it not?”

Me at 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC), in response to you:

On December 28, 2017, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee, when asked whether he had “seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign”, said “Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. … f course, remember, … it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet.”

After 4 days of you not responding, I split out the part that MelanieN and I were discussing into this new §.

Re your: “Also I note you left out ‘I am not sure’.”

No. See above.

In addition it leaves it the factoid he also said that he thought there was more evidence to come.

No. See above.

Re your: “You asked for proof that the article was flawed, I have provided some.”

You have provided zero proof the article was flawed. Did you even read what I wrote prior to your last response?

Before proceeding to your final points, is the above clear? Humanengr (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Is what clear about the above? I said that the piece had misrepresented what was said to make it more equitable then it was. It is not just about the alteration of one or two words, but omissions of key points. As to not responding, because all we would get is getting what we have now, going round in circles. You do not have consensus to include this material, however you try and re-word the question. What you have to do is explain why his views are important enough for inclusion, all you do is shout "do you have RS that dispute his claims". Well I did provide such an example oh how his claims and what other RS say do not quite tally. You have failed to explain why this is not the case, did he or did he not fail to mention that Himes had said he was not sure he had seen "not a lot more" (for example), if the answer is "no he did not mention it" then that is a difference between what he claims and what other RS claim.

I will not respond anymore here either as it is clear this is going nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Aah and oops — I see now it was my bad re the “I’m not sure”. Will redo the Himes quote separately per your “his own words” instruction below, citing CNN rather than Bump. This will be the same as what I offered above that you did not respond to. (Btw, I’ve been scolded here before for pinging when in direct discussion, else I would have done so to draw your attention to it.) Humanengr (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do we need it, what new does it tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Answered in new section below. Let’s continue there as the source is different. Humanengr (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, @Slatersteven, do you object to including the following from the Burr statement that Bump cites (setting aside any introductory statement for the moment)?

• Maryland was targeted by nearly five times as many ads as was Wisconsin (262 to 55).
• Thirty-five of the 55 ads targeting Wisconsin ran during the primary.
• More ads targeted DC than Pennsylvania.
• A total of $1,979 was spent in Wisconsin — $1,925 of it in the primary.
• The spending in Michigan and Pennsylvania were $823 and $300, respectively.
• More of the geographically targeted ads ran in 2015 than in 2016.

thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is any of that relevant (especially given that your elections start with the primaries).Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

From WP:JDLI:

=== Article content === Editing disputes are expected to be settled by reasoned civil discourse, and editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified—without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions—from reliable and independent sources. The Neutral Point of View requires that we make the best efforts to leave our innate prejudices at the door when we edit here, be they political, social, geographic, linguistic, cultural, or otherwise. Misplaced Pages:Writing for the enemy indeed recommends that we actively attempt to include points of view that counter our own prejudices.

Kindly advise as to any objections raised fall outside that scope. Humanengr (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Does the source say any the following A, The Russians did not interfere. B, It had no impact. C, There was no conclusion between Trump (or his associates) and the Russians. If it does not say any of this why is it relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

From Putin today

Consensus requires some sense. All arguments have been dispensed. MrX violated rules in Template:Archive top by closing it despite being a discussant, further showing gross bias of those in control of this page. Beyond that, this discussion is proving highly informative.]

Per RT:

Russia has never interfered in US internal affairs and is not planning to do so, Russian President Vladimir Putin said. He added that it is the US that “interferes everywhere” and should expect reciprocal action. No country would tolerate foreign interference in its internal affairs, Putin said, as he spoke at a meeting with the Russian media. He also said it is “absolutely wrong” that the US “constantly engages and makes attempts , believing that it is normal.”

Or is RT not reliable for quotes from Putin? Humanengr (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is commentary very similar to what Putin said many times before. There's nothing noteworthy about it. RT is a source best avoided.- MrX 02:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Did I miss it, or are all of Putin’s points above already included in this article? You also didn’t answer my question. Humanengr (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, his relevant points are in the article. I answered your questions:"RT is a source best avoided." In other words, it is not a reliable source.- MrX 02:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Only the first sentence is addressed in some form in the article. Your answer avoids answering whether RT is reliable for quotes from Putin. Humanengr (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Primary source. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s Putin’s statement of his own position, so that’s a groundless objection. Humanengr (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

His position is "we didn't do it" and whataboutery. No thanks.- MrX 03:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s still his position and should be included as such, your objection not withstanding. His statement re U.S. interference is well documented. Oh, and re tu quoque, it’s not: Putin did not say that the accusation is false because the U.S. did it. The denial of the accusation preceded the assertion that the U.S. interferes. Humanengr (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Humane, you do not understand our sourcing policies around here. It's a primary source and it is UNDUE. Please read WP:WEIGHT. It's a blog. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Russia is not a “tiny minority”. Neither of you have indicated how RT is unreliable for a quote from Putin. Any other objections? Humanengr (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The opinion of Putin is already noted on the page. This is a long standing KGB strategy to deny the obvious. Philipp Bobkov is famous for telling his people: "Never admit anything even if you were caught with your pants down". The explicit and well known purpose of such comments is to disinform people. Therefore, they need to be "translated" in the opposite sense. For example, saying "there are no our people in Crimea" should be translated as "our people are there" (something he openly admitted later). Same with regard to all other official statements from the same source. There was actually an art of reading and translating comments by Soviet officials. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we move beyond Putin’s first sentence, please? Humanengr (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, the rest of it is irrelevant. It does not matter what the USA did this is not a school playground where "the big boys did it first" is a defense.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, Background starts with ‘2.1 Russian interference in the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election’. Goose POV on prior bad acts but not gander POV. Humanengr (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Then maybe you should have raised an objection to that (one I have some sympathy with). But the presence of irrelvant information is not a justification for adding more.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the objection would more properly be yours or others in control here so effusive re NPOV. As in the § above: I’m ok with cutting the article down to “U.S. said Russia broke a U.S. law; Russian denied.” Should we start a thread on that? Humanengr (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your ‘What?’ should be directed at those pushing the neocon talking points here. Do you honestly expect me to tackle all such minutiae that pervade this page? I tried and failed on ‘alleged’ in the title, and succeeded only after intense effort on two framing points. The fact that you would foist additional onus on me speaks volumes. Humanengr (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If you see an issue, yes you raise it, you do not just use it to justify another bad edit. Your the one who raised the issue of Ukraine, not me. I just agreed it was a problem that should be dealt with. NPOV means we remove "Ate my hamster" not add "but he ate a dog".Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s not just Ukraine; it’s the existence and entire content of this article. You want to put that burden on me rather than accept some responsibility for this fiasco? Humanengr (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by the whole article, much of it seems to directly be about the subject. Just like you, I cannot see everything, you raised one issue I agree its a problem. I can see no others if there are, yes you bring them to peoples attention.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor is questioning the underlying assumptions that Russia had every done anything wrong and therefore any mention of Ukraine being used as a test before the USA elections or even mention of the USA election meddling has no merit. The entire article should be deleted is what I'm hearing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hum, please review and consider all the responses you've been given here and please read the site policies and editing guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I did and, you’re right, none of the required competence is here. How else does one explain how so-called ‘progressives’ push a neocon narrative against the wrong target? It can’t simply be “RS says so and that’s what we report.” You wouldn’t be here if you didn’t buy the narrative and have that as motivation. So stop the faux innocence. Humanengr (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a hark back to And you are lynching Negroes, I don't see how Putin's latest denial + misdirection has a place in the article. ValarianB (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No soapboxing please.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Russia targeting US senate

Not sure if this is within scope as strictly speaking it's not about the 2016 election but "Russia-linked hackers targeting US Senate".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You have just answered this yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's suppose to mean "it's not within scope" (I didn't, that's the "not sure" part), where should it go? Since the interference is ongoing, do we need another article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like it would need a separate section and a lot more reference material. Perhaps waiting a bit to see if more news comes out? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I think another article covering Russia's actions is needed, or renaming this one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems to belong to Cyberwarfare in the United States or/and Cyberwarfare by Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, yes the latter.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The source specifically references the 2016 election hack, so this could certainly be footnoted in the article, but not unless there are 2-3 sources to demonstrate noteworthiness.- MrX 22:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ruminations on "reflections"

An editor has reinserted the gratuitous POV disparagement of Clinton here . Obviously, ordinary language tells our readers that when Sec'y Clinton spoke and and "reflected" she was presenting her assessment or opinion as to the matter. The gratuitous insertion of "what she said" conveys doubt, disparagement, and dishonesty.

Therefore I copy edited those words out while improving the continuity to make clear that this was still part of Clinton's reflection (i.e. opinion) and although this article is not under the "consensus required" restriction, normal editing and good sense tell us that this should not have been reinserted without discussion. These words should again be removed. (signed) SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC), what she said.

I read it that way as well. Another possible rewrite is On December 15, 2016, Hillary Clinton gave a gratitude speech to her campaign donors in which she reflected on what she said were Putin's motivations for the covert operation on losing the election. Not everything in that paragraph is about Putin's motivations. There's some Comey stuff and other factors as well. The article should cover potential motivations more prominently than that anyway, sources other than Clinton probably exist. Geogene (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those extra words would be appropriate if the mainstream view was established as different than her own, otherwise it's both unnecessary and does tend to cast doubt. I also agree with Geogene. "Putin's motivations for the covert operation" is an unnecessary introduction to what is covered in the very next five sentences.- MrX 01:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility is simply, "Clinton stated Putin's motivations..." I'm not trying to cast doubt on Clinton's statement, all dishonest disparagement aside. -Darouet (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're trying to claim you made a "good faith" error, then please correct it with a quick self-revert while we all continue to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Above, MelanieN stated, "SPECIFICO, your repeated personal criticism of Darouet is inappropriate. Such talk only leads to counter-accusations and degrades the tone of the page." You replied by again personally attacking me: "opinions of less active, less experienced, less productive editors than yourself is counterproductive here... I think we'd all be better off without carping or paratrooper appearances without any avenue to article improvement..." As far as I can tell that statement still strongly suggests WP:PERSONAL attacks and shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND (paratrooping) mentality.

For my edit being discussed here, I explained in the edit summary, "attributing to Clinton." In your revert you stated my edit was "pointy," i.e. violating WP:POINT. However, WP:NOTPOINTy explicitly states, As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I explained in my original edit summary what my objections were, and those objections were wholly consistent with my edit, so you had no grounds to invoke POINT, in the process failing to WP:AGF.

Here on the talk page, above, you have written that my edit is "gratuitous POV disparagement..." and "dishonest". You write I 'claim made a "good faith" error", using a WP:WEASEL word and placing snark quotes to suggest I'm editing in WP:BADFAITH. It's impossible to even begin to have an editorial conversation when your knee-jerk reaction is is to fail to AGF, revert, and attack someone who disagrees with you. -Darouet (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please cut out the AGF bit. Quotation marks are used in English (and other languages I know) to indicate reference to the words rather than solely to their meaning. Nothing to do with snark, etc. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Like SPECIFICO, both Geogene and MrX dislike my added phrase, "...she reflected on what she said were Putin's motivations for the covert operation." As far as I can tell, that phrasing is neutral with respect to judgement on Clinton's reflections. However, I'm just one reader and editor, and I could be wrong in my assessment. What I'd like to have is wording that, from an editorial perspective, appears to neither endorse nor cast doubt on Clinton's statements, and instead merely reports them.

Geogene and MrX suggest dropping the clause altogether, since what follows explains Clinton's view: "Hillary Clinton gave a gratitude speech to her campaign donors in which she reflected on losing the election." I don't object to that. SPECIFICO, does that seem reasonable to you? -Darouet (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Simplest fix would be to remove the POV smear and then we can see if anything needs to be fixed. I don't think this is really something that needs to rise to the level of a negotiation. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Geogene's suggestion as it better fits the succeeding text. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Somebody should implement. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Dartmouth research: Trump and fake news

I'm not sure where to put this, but it seems relevant here. A recent study from Dartmouth is receiving attention in secondary sources:

Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign

People who supported Trump were far more likely to visit fake news websites — especially those that are pro-Trump — than Clinton supporters. Among Trump supporters, 40% read at least one article from a pro-Trump fake news website ... compared with only 15% of Clinton supporters.... Consumption of articles from pro-Clinton fake news websites was much lower, though also somewhat divided by candidate support. Clinton supporters were modestly more likely to have visited pro-Clinton fake news websites ... versus Trump supporters .... The differences by candidate preference that we observe in fake news website visits are even more pronounced when expressed in terms of the composition of the overall news diets of each group. Articles on fake news websites represented an average of 6.2% of the pages visited on sites that focused on news topics among Trump supporters versus 0.8% among Clinton supporters.

That's literally 8 times as much! That's very significant.

One secondary source, NBC News, interviewed one of the authors, Brendan Nyhan, and they discussed the findings. Here's an interesting quote:

NBC:

"It feels like there’s a connection between having an active portion of a party that’s prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you’re describing."

Nyhan:

"It’s worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it’s also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (emphasis added)

There should be other sources, but this is a good one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Does it mention Russia? If not then probably not relevant here. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it doesn't. I just assumed, that since much of the fake news did come from Russia and Macedonia, that it would mention it, but it doesn't. Since Kushner on the Trump campaign worked closely with Cambridge Analytica, and they worked directly with Facebook's marketing people, much of it may have come directly from the Trump campaign, using Facebook. Investigators also suspect that the Trump team/Cambridge also channeled data to Wikileaks and Russia, to help them fine tune the fake news they used to target voters.

• Cambridge Analytica, the shady data firm that might be a key Trump-Russia link, explained. Why House investigators think this company might have helped Russia spread fake news.

This search brings up a whole lot about how Kushner and Facebook worked together, and some about the Russian connection to Cambridge and Assange. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Himes CNN interview

Jim Himes interview with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota:

Camerota: Have you seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign? Himes: Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. And of course remember, the Congress is not about investigating crimes. The FBI and Robert Mueller are about that, and of course Robert Mueller has secured two guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and from George Papadopoulos, and of course, has indicted two other individuals, and it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet. So of course like a lot of Americans, I am waiting to see whatever else ….

Suggested paraphrase to add to the U.S. House of Representatives §:

On December 28, 2017, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee, when asked whether he had “seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign”, said “Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. … f course, remember, … it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet.”

As that section stands, the last statement re status of evidence is Schiff’s March 22 from an article “Schiff: ‘More Than Circumstantial Evidence’ Trump Associates Colluded With Russia”. The above suggestion clarifies and updates that by bounding what the committee has seen.

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Adds nothing. Drop it. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Does the Schiff statement indicate any upper limit to the extent of evidence seen to-date by the House committee? Humanengr (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

When poker players are holding their cards close to their bodies, don't trust what they say. The same applies here. They can't say too much, and can't allude to too much, for fear of giving away information to suspects. That means there really isn't enough here to use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you know there is more evidence? Have been doing WP:OR? :) Yes or no — does the Schiff statement indicate any upper limit to the extent of evidence seen to-date by the House committee? Humanengr (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well lets see, he is not sure he has not, and he says that Muller has still a way to go. Yes that seems to me he is implying that there may well be more evidence, we (and maybe he) is just not yet aware of it.

Also why is this even relevant, what does it actually tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

For sake of discussion, I’ll go along with your interpretation that “there may well be more evidence” that Mueller has or might provide. What this edit is directed at though is clarifying what evidence the committee has seen. I read Himes saying “I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of” as conveying either that “I have not seen any” or — “It’s very unlikely I have seen a lot”, so the reader is led to accept both possibilities. Am I being fair in my interpretation of the Himes statement? Humanengr (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Kindly explain. Humanengr (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, thx for persevering on this. Humanengr (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Return of SYNTH

After I purged the OR SYNTH insinuation that the Russian social media campaign did not affect the 2016 US Election, modified nonsense has been edit-warred back into the article here: . #Sad. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the "OR SYNTH insinuation" is practically taken directly out of the Guardian article, and I quote: Less than half of the ads were seen prior to the US election on 8 November, Schrage said in the post, while 56% were viewed after. And roughly a quarter of the ads were not seen by anyone.. You're implying that the Guardian, which we're citing, is itself producing "OR SYNTH insinuation that the Russian social media campaign did not affect the 2016 US Election," which you describe as "modified nonsense." Yes, sad. -Darouet (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That edit also inserts a baldfaced misrepresentation of the cited NY Times reference about Clinton's discussion of Putin's motivations for the Russian interference and cherrypicks a minor mention of her loss that occurs at the tail end of the long article. @Darouet:, please read the cited source and undo this bad edit. Rather than continuing to reinsert your POV, please use talk. SPECIFICO talk 04:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I already implemented the fix that you and others recommended above, removing the problematic sentence entirely, so I'm not sure what this is about. -Darouet (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• The 56% bit is virtually verbatim from the source, and there's no shortage of pundits (left- and right-leaning) saying that there's no evidence the interference affected the outcome of the election. I have no comment on the Clinton bit, not having read that source yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: the fix I implemented comes directly out of this discussion, and was not the solution I'd originally proposed, but rather Geogene's. -Darouet (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a cherrypicked and artfully stated meaningless statistic that gives the impression that there was little impact from those ads because most clicks were after the election. Well, time after the election is infinite and one day in another solar system the races that descend from humanity will be able to read that 99.99999% of the clicks happened in the 32 milennia following the 2016 election. Not everything printed in a source adds to an NPOV informative narrative. I would have thought this was clear enough from the discussion above, but at any rate it reads like a sotto voce aside to the readers to disregard the needless fuss over the Russian interference campaign on social media. And of course, also discussed previously on this talk page, it plays into facebook's self-serving narrative that everything's good with facebook -- notwithstanding that they've already been called out for prevaricating, bobbing and weaving about these ads. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You can send a letter to the Guardian...? -Darouet (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What Papadopoulos told Downer

User:TheTimesAreAChanging, you have twice removed from the article the information that Papadopoulos told Downer that the Russians had a dirt file on rival candidate Hillary Clinton "in the form of hacked Democratic Party emails". You said this was an “unsourced false claim” because you said “the NYT was unable to confirm” what emails he was talking about. But the reference cited for that sentence - the Sydney Morning Herald - says the information has been independently confirmed by Fairfax Media (the Herald’s parent company). The actual quote is

Fairfax Media has confirmed independently that the conversation first reported by The New York Times took place. In May 2016, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos told Mr Downer over drinks at an upscale London wine bar that the Russians had a dirt file on rival candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of hacked Democratic Party emails.

Presumably their information comes from an Australian source (remember, the other party to the conversation was Australian) and is independent of the NYT. Thus the information is sourced to a reliable source and should be retained. I suggest you revert yourself and restore it. And I suggest you be more careful about accusing people of inserting false information. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't understand this removal. Fairfax media is a major Oceana Region news outlet of longstanding and sterling reputation. I agree this should be restored and if TTAAC wishes to impeach the source, RSN would be the place to raise any issues with its credibility. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both of these comments, which is why I reverted it the first time.- MrX 02:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. I'm getting tired of editors who carry water for Putin and Trump. When those men deny something, DON'T BELIEVE THEM! It's really that simple. Such editors need to stop reading unreliable sources and learn from our content here. It's been vetted, unlike FoxNews, Breitbart, etc. Failure to learn from our content shows a lack of judgement. If they can't tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, and still get their info from unreliable ones, then they constantly create disruption here. One would think that 16,142 edits since 2010-10-08 would be enough time to learn this. SMH. I'm still going to AGF in their good will, but competence is required here. Good will isn't enoughOne must learn and then change one's mind accordingly. Maybe, just maybe, mainstream RS are better than right-wing (and extreme left-wing) ones. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN and MrX repeatedly and falsely claimed that it has been confirmed that the emails of which Papadopoulos boasted were the same Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks in July 2016. In fact, even Papadopoulos himself is unlikely to know for sure whether that is the case. That The New York Times's report has been independently corroborated is irrelevant because the Times never made the claim attributed to it by MelanieN and MrX. Shortly after The New York Times went to print, The Sydney Morning Herald published a derivative account that opened with "Fairfax Media has confirmed independently that the conversation first reported by The New York Times took place," before going on to briefly summarize the contents of the conversation in question:

"In May 2016, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos told Mr Downer over drinks at an upscale London wine bar that the Russians had a dirt file on rival candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of hacked Democratic Party emails. Mr Downer conveyed the conversation to Canberra via an official cable, though apparently not immediately—perhaps because he did not take the 28-year-old adviser's claims altogether seriously until the hacked emails were released by Wikileaks in late July."

MelanieN, fueled by confirmation bias and in defiance of common sense, inflated the careless parsing in bold into the extravagant claim that The Sydney Morning Herald had scooped America's paper of record and then buried the lead, while all of America's mainstream media failed to report on the alleged breaking news.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. What are you really trying to say? What do you think happened to the emails from the time they were stolen from the DNC servers and they were released by Wikileaks? What's the timeline you're seeing? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I have often been sympathetic to your opinions here and do trust your intelligence, but as far as I can tell, MelanieN and BullRangifer are correct that these quotes are coming directly out of the sources. Even if those being quoted are incorrect, we're attributing the statements to them. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, there's a vast difference between MelanieN's edit and BullRangifer's edit, which I think would be obvious if you actually took the time to compare them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

TheTimes, I asked you once before to be more careful about accusing people of making false statements. Instead you doubled down and expanded your personal attacks. Now I am not just making false claims; I am also blinded by confirmation bias and lacking in common sense. I am a patient person, but this kind of blast violates talk page policy, and if repeated is likely to have consequences. Now to the meat of the matter: you remain convinced that the only source that knows anything about this is the New York Times, and that any other reports must be simply derivative of their reporting. You are so sure of that belief that you are willing to throw around wild accusations and ignore the plain wording of the source: They (the Morning Herald) have an independent source which gave them independent information. They acknowledged the NYT for its scoop, a journalistic courtesy, and then went on to report what their source told them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Computer Security articles
• High-importance Computer Security articles
• B-Class Computer Security articles of High-importance
• B-Class Computing articles
• High-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Computer Security articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Top-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• B-Class Espionage articles
• Top-importance Espionage articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Internet articles
• Low-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class intelligence articles
• Intelligence task force articles
• Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• High-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• High-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• Top-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press