This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russia investigation origins counter-narrative article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
I take issue with the wording in the first line... "sometimes identified as a conspiracy theory". Do all the citations agree that it is only considered a conspiracy theory "SOMETIMES"? I suppose if you asked SOME Trump supporters, at certain TIMES of the day, they might not consider it a conspiracy theory, but that's not a metric. This "alternate narrative" is more like "alternate facts" IE WP:SYNTH. DN ( talk) 17:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
the John Durham investigation has proven this isnt a conspiracy theory. this article is out of date and misleading. Jaygo113 ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
‘paid firm to spy on Trump’in scare quotes, a more than unfortunate headline because—as this discussion proves—people don't pay attention to quotation marks or choice of verbs such as the use of the verb "suggested" in the first paragraph. I can't read the rest of the article because of the paywall but the beginning indicates that the Times article does not support Durham's "suggestion". The Washington Post fact checker wrote that Durham used the opportunity of filing a request with the court
to examine what he called were potential conflicts of interest regarding Sussmann’s counsel, Latham & Watkinsto make new allegations unrelated to the request. The fact checker noted that Durham does not specifically claim that the alleged monitoring of DNS traffic at the White House took place while Trump was president. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The original story line that Clinton’s team had overseen some sort of electronic spying on Trump including while he was president was badly undercut, and Fox News prime time ran with it anyway. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
"Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track". The New York Times. February 14, 2022. soibangla ( talk) 23:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
[1] "Trump and numerous other Republicans went on to cite Durham's filing as proof that Hillary Clinton's campaign directed an illegal conspiracy to spy on Trump both during and possibly after his 2016 election victory, though nowhere in Durham's filing did prosecutors say that the effort was directed by or involved the Clinton campaign, that any of the alleged gathering of data took place after Trump had taken office, or that any of the alleged conduct -- even if it took place -- was illegal." DN ( talk) 23:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
[2] "So far, there is no evidence that the Clinton campaign directly managed the Steele reporting or leaks about it to the media." "Thus far, Durham has not charged anyone with spying on Trump." DN ( talk) 23:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
IP is sad... [3] [4] [5] DN ( talk) 07:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, right? Encyclopedia should cite professional sources, not popular sources for backing up any stated fact in an article. Whatever your thoughts and opinions are about news media political bias, it cannot be denied that journalism is not a strong enough source to stand alone, especially in support of bold, damning claims.
Unless a news article is a primary source of information, it cannot be cited as a factual basis for any claim.
That being said, it’s easy to fix the damage you editors are trying to do. The very fact that Wikipedia requires source citations is the beauty of it. You can make wild claims and back them up with weak sources, and you can bully other editors an overrule their edits, but you can never ever deny the ultimate weakness of your own claims.
Using the word conspiracy theory is anti-educational. Shame on you all. Carpedm333 ( talk) 07:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.This is unspecific and therefore useless.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.This is unspecific and therefore useless.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.This is unspecific and therefore useless.
Using the word conspiracy theory is anti-educational. Blah."Conspiracy theory" is sourced to reliable sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the lead I changed "is a conspiracy theory" back to the older version "identified as a conspiracy theory". The reason is the details of the sources cited for this phrase, of which there are five (Reuters, WaPo, Vanity Fair, NBC News, Vox). Among these five, Reuters and WaPo do not state in editorial voice that this is a conspiracy theory, but attribute it to people discussed in the articles. Vanity Fair and Vox are described at WP:RSP as potentially partisan or biased, and so if on their own ought to be attributed. So "is a conspiracy theory" does not appear to accurately reflect all five of the cited sources.
This leaves the NBC News source. NBC News does indeed describe this as a conspiracy theory in editorial voice, so I still think "is a conspiracy theory" would be appropriate in this sentence—however, in that case the other four sources should be trimmed here and replaced with different sources which do refer to the subject of this article as a conspiracy theory in editorial voice. Fiwec81618 ( talk) 07:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
this title is nonsensical. A counter narrative? Counter to who's narrative? it turns out, the Clinton Campaign's narrative. "This should be called, Special Council Investigation into DNC-Russia Conspiracy Theory/DNC Attempts to frame Donald Trump." Jaygo113 ( talk) 00:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
on the subsection of the "Theory", I made edits and cited acceptable sources and it was still reverted to disproven assertations that the claims were only theoretical. whats the deal here? Jaygo113 ( talk) 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted Jaygo113's reinsertion and pushing of the false claims and also added clarity to the lead using content from the body of the article. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 08:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
A large portion of this page is already dedicated to the Durham investigation. And the items which happened before the inception of that investigation can easily go in a "background" section. Nweil ( talk) 18:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite the Steele dossier section that was added and it was reverted without explanation, so I simply removed it as it's duplicative of material that's already in the article anyway. The article already states in the first False claims about origins section
, The claim that the Steele dossier had a role in triggering the overall Russian interference investigation
.. etc, so it's not germane to the article topic to add this stuff about Steele and the Durham Danchenko thing in the way that's being presented.
Andre
🚐
02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
[8] Andre 🚐 02:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
the Durham Report has invalidated all the information in this article, which relies on unverified speculation from 5+ years ago Jaygo113 ( talk) 20:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
|
We need to exercise caution when applying the new Durham conclusions to this article. It's still new, shows lots of partisan bias (like any statements from Trump and Barr), and contradicts many findings by Mueller and Horowitz. We need to be patient and then use secondary reliable sources that have analyzed and digested Durham's conclusions as our sources, not depending on the primary source. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I'm in the wrong page, but it seems wierd to focus the majority of the article on the counter narrative and how it's aparenty a conspiracy theory and less on the actual claims and how the narrative of collusion turned out to be false
Also, would the initial claims of collusion not also count as a "conspiracy theory"? Thou I'm not sure if we should use that language Pedro Prada Carciofi ( talk) 17:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This article implies that the "Russian collusion" narrative has only been critiqued by Donald Trump and his associates, in a manner that amounts to "conspiracy theorizing". That is misleading, and it is a lie by omission. In fact, journalists and scholars have widely critiqued several of the narratives promoted by the media in response to Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
This article should be significantly re-written and expanded to account for this fact. I posted some scholarly sources to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election article - the sources might also be useful in this article. I am going to leave them here, in hopes that I or someone else will find the time to weave them into the article in the future. I also encourage other editors to find & incorporate other scholarly sources on the topic.
Philomathes2357 ( talk) 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russia investigation origins counter-narrative article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
I take issue with the wording in the first line... "sometimes identified as a conspiracy theory". Do all the citations agree that it is only considered a conspiracy theory "SOMETIMES"? I suppose if you asked SOME Trump supporters, at certain TIMES of the day, they might not consider it a conspiracy theory, but that's not a metric. This "alternate narrative" is more like "alternate facts" IE WP:SYNTH. DN ( talk) 17:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
the John Durham investigation has proven this isnt a conspiracy theory. this article is out of date and misleading. Jaygo113 ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
‘paid firm to spy on Trump’in scare quotes, a more than unfortunate headline because—as this discussion proves—people don't pay attention to quotation marks or choice of verbs such as the use of the verb "suggested" in the first paragraph. I can't read the rest of the article because of the paywall but the beginning indicates that the Times article does not support Durham's "suggestion". The Washington Post fact checker wrote that Durham used the opportunity of filing a request with the court
to examine what he called were potential conflicts of interest regarding Sussmann’s counsel, Latham & Watkinsto make new allegations unrelated to the request. The fact checker noted that Durham does not specifically claim that the alleged monitoring of DNS traffic at the White House took place while Trump was president. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The original story line that Clinton’s team had overseen some sort of electronic spying on Trump including while he was president was badly undercut, and Fox News prime time ran with it anyway. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
"Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track". The New York Times. February 14, 2022. soibangla ( talk) 23:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
[1] "Trump and numerous other Republicans went on to cite Durham's filing as proof that Hillary Clinton's campaign directed an illegal conspiracy to spy on Trump both during and possibly after his 2016 election victory, though nowhere in Durham's filing did prosecutors say that the effort was directed by or involved the Clinton campaign, that any of the alleged gathering of data took place after Trump had taken office, or that any of the alleged conduct -- even if it took place -- was illegal." DN ( talk) 23:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
[2] "So far, there is no evidence that the Clinton campaign directly managed the Steele reporting or leaks about it to the media." "Thus far, Durham has not charged anyone with spying on Trump." DN ( talk) 23:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
IP is sad... [3] [4] [5] DN ( talk) 07:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, right? Encyclopedia should cite professional sources, not popular sources for backing up any stated fact in an article. Whatever your thoughts and opinions are about news media political bias, it cannot be denied that journalism is not a strong enough source to stand alone, especially in support of bold, damning claims.
Unless a news article is a primary source of information, it cannot be cited as a factual basis for any claim.
That being said, it’s easy to fix the damage you editors are trying to do. The very fact that Wikipedia requires source citations is the beauty of it. You can make wild claims and back them up with weak sources, and you can bully other editors an overrule their edits, but you can never ever deny the ultimate weakness of your own claims.
Using the word conspiracy theory is anti-educational. Shame on you all. Carpedm333 ( talk) 07:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.This is unspecific and therefore useless.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.This is unspecific and therefore useless.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.This is unspecific and therefore useless.
Using the word conspiracy theory is anti-educational. Blah."Conspiracy theory" is sourced to reliable sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the lead I changed "is a conspiracy theory" back to the older version "identified as a conspiracy theory". The reason is the details of the sources cited for this phrase, of which there are five (Reuters, WaPo, Vanity Fair, NBC News, Vox). Among these five, Reuters and WaPo do not state in editorial voice that this is a conspiracy theory, but attribute it to people discussed in the articles. Vanity Fair and Vox are described at WP:RSP as potentially partisan or biased, and so if on their own ought to be attributed. So "is a conspiracy theory" does not appear to accurately reflect all five of the cited sources.
This leaves the NBC News source. NBC News does indeed describe this as a conspiracy theory in editorial voice, so I still think "is a conspiracy theory" would be appropriate in this sentence—however, in that case the other four sources should be trimmed here and replaced with different sources which do refer to the subject of this article as a conspiracy theory in editorial voice. Fiwec81618 ( talk) 07:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
this title is nonsensical. A counter narrative? Counter to who's narrative? it turns out, the Clinton Campaign's narrative. "This should be called, Special Council Investigation into DNC-Russia Conspiracy Theory/DNC Attempts to frame Donald Trump." Jaygo113 ( talk) 00:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
on the subsection of the "Theory", I made edits and cited acceptable sources and it was still reverted to disproven assertations that the claims were only theoretical. whats the deal here? Jaygo113 ( talk) 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted Jaygo113's reinsertion and pushing of the false claims and also added clarity to the lead using content from the body of the article. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 08:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
A large portion of this page is already dedicated to the Durham investigation. And the items which happened before the inception of that investigation can easily go in a "background" section. Nweil ( talk) 18:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite the Steele dossier section that was added and it was reverted without explanation, so I simply removed it as it's duplicative of material that's already in the article anyway. The article already states in the first False claims about origins section
, The claim that the Steele dossier had a role in triggering the overall Russian interference investigation
.. etc, so it's not germane to the article topic to add this stuff about Steele and the Durham Danchenko thing in the way that's being presented.
Andre
🚐
02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
[8] Andre 🚐 02:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
the Durham Report has invalidated all the information in this article, which relies on unverified speculation from 5+ years ago Jaygo113 ( talk) 20:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
|
We need to exercise caution when applying the new Durham conclusions to this article. It's still new, shows lots of partisan bias (like any statements from Trump and Barr), and contradicts many findings by Mueller and Horowitz. We need to be patient and then use secondary reliable sources that have analyzed and digested Durham's conclusions as our sources, not depending on the primary source. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I'm in the wrong page, but it seems wierd to focus the majority of the article on the counter narrative and how it's aparenty a conspiracy theory and less on the actual claims and how the narrative of collusion turned out to be false
Also, would the initial claims of collusion not also count as a "conspiracy theory"? Thou I'm not sure if we should use that language Pedro Prada Carciofi ( talk) 17:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This article implies that the "Russian collusion" narrative has only been critiqued by Donald Trump and his associates, in a manner that amounts to "conspiracy theorizing". That is misleading, and it is a lie by omission. In fact, journalists and scholars have widely critiqued several of the narratives promoted by the media in response to Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
This article should be significantly re-written and expanded to account for this fact. I posted some scholarly sources to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election article - the sources might also be useful in this article. I am going to leave them here, in hopes that I or someone else will find the time to weave them into the article in the future. I also encourage other editors to find & incorporate other scholarly sources on the topic.
Philomathes2357 ( talk) 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)