![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior. 'The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards — can we prove this in court'" one of the officials said. 'The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means 'we're pretty damn sure.' It doesn't mean they can prove it in court.'
This article explains some of the cultural differences between the FBI and CIA.
They may have similar information, just different standards.
FBI must prove its conclusions in a court of law.
CIA just thinks about what it can state with "high confidence" and deliver as an analysis to the President. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:US 2016 presidential elections series on whether that navbox should include a link to this article. Editors are invited to participate. Neutrality talk 16:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If Rex Tillerson is widely being reported as Trump's choice for the next secretary of state. If that does occur, this article should provide a quick summation of his links to Russia and a link to his page. Casprings ( talk) 05:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of The Washington Post story says:
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
Yes, there is a quote below it that states it is from "a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. Senators" However, that is one source within the story. Its pretty clear from the opening statement what is being reported and there are multiple means for a reporter to fact check. Casprings ( talk) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Article currently says: "On December 9, U.S. intelligence concluded that the Russian government was involved in hacking servers of the Republican National Committee (RNC) – but said they did not release the content of the hack in a desire to tilt the election in favor of the Republican party's candidate" and cites http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0
The Post says no such thing. In fact, regarding the RNC hacks, they explicitly say "It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.". The Post says NOTHING about the Russians withholding RNC data to "favor the republican".
The Post DOES say the Russians hacked in order to "promote Donald Trump" but considering the context, and the explicit mention of the RNC hacks later in the article, this almost certainly pertains to the DNC hacks, not the RNC hacks.
I'm going to go ahead and remove any attribution of motive pertaining to the RNC hacks, because the Post says motive is "far from clear". Marteau ( talk) 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
"American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.
They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."
— New York Times
I have started a request for comment on what the WP:WEIGHT of the information contained in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in articles and templates that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. The WP:RFC is located here. Casprings ( talk) 01:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Darouet, please do NOT change merge tags during the ongoing discussion, as you did at [1] and [2].
This is disruptive.
Several are already against this, already stated, above, including Casprings, Neutrality, and MrX.
Let the original discussion play its course please.
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 01:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
"Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies represented by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election."
... is the latest iteration of the first sentence of this article.
That sentence completely misrepresents what the source says. The source ACTUALLY says:
"In fact, in early October, the director of national intelligence, representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security said they were confident that the Russian government had directed the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee and a top Clinton adviser."
"Seventeen agencies" absolutely did NOT "conclude". The Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (who represent 17 agencies) came to that conclusion. Because they represent 17 agencies, you can't say that 17 agencies came to that conclusion.
This re-phrasing is highly misleading and illogical. It would have us believe that, for example, the Department of Energy (one of those 17 agencies) independently came to the conclusion that Russia hacked the election. Or that the DEA did so, as well.
I would revert, but I already have one for today. But this edit is highly misleading, outrageous, misrepresents the source, and is an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Marteau ( talk) 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
With regard to this edit, I understand that there are references specifically referring to Russia's "denial," but "skepticism" is arguably a better and more neutral term for the section in question, because it covers much more than Russia's official line. Moreover, "denial" is often used as a pejorative term to denigrate individuals that refuse to accept facts despite overwhelming evidence ( Holocaust denial being the classic example). Given that the CIA leaked these allegations to the press before the inquiry ordered by Obama had even begun, and no hard evidence is currently available, it would be desirable to avoid the implication that Greenwald et al. are "deniers." TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 12:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Russian statements, WP:CLAIM states, "be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability." The Russian government is not a living person, but the verb "deny" may imply culpability. So, "Russian government response" or something like that is fine, and avoids the editorial suggestion that they are "guilty."
More importantly however the majority of this section currently deals with other voices that are skeptical of the allegations made by U.S. officials. "Denial," even beyond the POV issue raised above, doesn't describe them, and therefore mischaracterizes the majority of the section. It should be renamed. - Darouet ( talk) 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree his personal opinion can be in the article.
But let's keep these in the section, Media commentary. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. We should not just list the opinions of the first journalists who state an opinion. Especially self-published. Trump's view can be stated because he is directly involved in various aspects of the matter, including his exhortation to the Russians that may have resulted in this crime. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I share SPECIFICO's wariness to including instantaneous punditry here. But as long as we're including Greenwald, he can't stand alone, because that is the epitome of undue. I've added two op-eds: one from Russia expert and academic Michael McFaul and the other from historian Robert S. McElvaine. Neutrality talk 20:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Greenwald, writing in the Intercept is a WP:SPS. There's no reason to include it unless other sources comment on it extensively. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.Greenwald is indeed an established expert on the subject matter of government surveillance, influence peddling, information leaks and propaganda; his work has been previously published by "reliable third-party publications" called Salon, The Guardian and The Washington Post. The fact that he now self-publishes (with financial support from noted philanthropist Pierre Omidyar) does not in any way diminish his credibility. Ergo, SPS supports Wikipedia quoting him here. — JFG talk 06:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
"WikiLeaks' Julian Assange has insisted that the Russian government is not the source of the Podesta and DNC e-mails. That may well be true, and it can still be true even if the Russian government had a hand in directing or funding the operation. But that is all speculation—the only way that the full scope of Russia's involvement in the hacking campaign and other aspects of the information campaign against Clinton (and for Trump) will be known is if the Obama administration publishes conclusive evidence in a form that can be independently analyzed.". This call to produce direct evidence has been echoed exactly by a lead article in the Intercept. Snowden made the same point very early on. Of course, within the standard propaganda framework, calling for evidence and accountability in response to allegations of a vast and venal conspiracy by the designated enemy is sacrilege (see FP's absurd whataboutism for an illustration): such a rash demand only serves to unmask you as yet another member of that same vast conspiracy. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Intelligence agencies are massive and complex institutions, and what they "conclude" can be ambiguous even decades after events have occurred. These statements in the Washington Post and NPR:
"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter." WashPo
and
"The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump win the presidency, a U.S. official has confirmed to NPR." NPR
show that U.S. officials have told news organizations that the CIA has concluded Russia intervened in the U.S. election to help Trump. That is what these sources say. We do not know, from these sources, what the CIA has concluded.
All assertions in this article should be properly attributed. Media organizations are not always neutral, and do not always use neutral language, etc., but at a bare minimum we need to be as cautious as they are. This is an encyclopedia. - Darouet ( talk) 19:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
"these actors who obtained this material and delivered it to WikiLeaks were described to us as being one step removed from Russian intelligence services as known entities... known affiliations with those Russian intelligence services, but nevertheless not necessarily specifically part of those services... [FBI] Director Comey, notably, did not sign off — at least publicly — on the letter that the director of national intelligence and director of homeland security issued in late October, accusing Russia..."
"U.S. agencies believe they have identified who in the Russian government was involved in ordering operations to disrupt the U.S. election and how they were orchestrated. They are reluctant to make the information public because that could compromise how the intelligence was gathered, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "
I have made a post here, User talk:Jimbo Wales#Systematic problems at US-Russia articles, because I think this is a very serious issue. - Darouet ( talk) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC) @ Neutrality, Casprings, Sagecandor, and MrX: - Darouet ( talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources say "CIA said X". That's all there is to it. Any kind of spin on that is just original research. That's it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Please, all, stop adding new info directly into the lead.
Instead, add it to the article body text, and then summarize it back up top in the lead.
This way, hopefully, the WP:LEAD will be a summary, not an article in its own right LOL.
Thanks ! Sagecandor ( talk) 03:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph, as it currently stands, contains a concise summary of the article. I recommend we cull the last three paragraphs. BlueSalix ( talk) 14:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Can we please try to limit it to no more than three citations per statement, at least in the intro? Sagecandor ( talk) 20:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Right now we state that the FBI believes Russia interfered in the US election, based on this quote from the Washington Post: "The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling. “There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals,” said one U.S. official."
.
[8] We have other sources that cite the WashPo article:
[9]
[10]
[11]. FBI officials may be convinced that the Russians are behind the breaches, and perhaps we can find older articles verifying this? But the statement of a single anonymous U.S. official on the matter should not be sufficient for us here to reproduce the statement's content as truth, instead of attributing it. -
Darouet (
talk)
20:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's please use chronological order for the intro.
Please stop adding new info to the intro.
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 20:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Suggest we get rid of recent edits by Will to Truth ( talk · contribs) [15] [16] [17] as they violate WP:LEAD, introducing new info directly to intro without first being in article body text. They also seem to violate WP:NPOV. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Re the following items that I've just taken out of the lead.
-- Neutrality talk 15:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
“ | United States intelligence agencies have accused the Russian Federation of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a claim Russia denies. The CIA has suggested the alleged interference was done to help the presidential ambitions of then-candidate Donald Trump, though the FBI has disputed this conclusion. The claims and counter-claims have generated intense public discussion by media and political commentators with some, like Michael McFaul and Robert S. McElvaine, decrying the alleged Russian interference while others, such as Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald, have questioned whether any interference actually occurred. | ” |
I more or less agree with Neutrality. I'd exclude Greenwald unless somehow it becomes prominent, as there's nothing that distinguishes him in this particular case from scores of other pundits. I'd keep Reid in the text not in the lede. The Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman comment I would also keep but not in the lede. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict) (The bloody page name changed in mid edit!) All of these names should remain out of the lead, per Neutrality. Opinions, commentary, and speculation by individuals does not rise to level of importance to justify including in the lead. I would support omitting them entirely from the article, but I don;t feel as strongly about it. Comparing the Washington Post's article with any of the commentary is like comparing elephants to Barbie dolls. - Mr X 18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
US officials and agencies have alleged that Russia intervened in the US election, and this is a known and accepted fact. Russia denies these allegations and whether they are true remains contested. Per WP:POVTITLE, I've moved the page to Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia, because the previous title was an egregious POV violation. - Darouet ( talk) 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Re [19]. Please stop. This edit is not based on any sources except one editors idiosyncratic opinion. And it makes the sentence factually incorrect since allegations of Russian interference were NOT first made in October, they were made as far back as March IIRC. The whole importance of what this article is about is that these allegations have now been publicly acknowledged by the intelligence agencies. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
"these allegations have now been publicly acknowledged by the intelligence agencies"(the wording you defend here at talk), and
"2016 United States election interference by Russia was first acknowleged publicly by the U.S. government in an October 2016 letter from the U.S. Intelligence Community."[sic] (the wording you just wrote into the first sentence of the lead). The first sentence is defensible by sources, the second isn't. Let me know if you don't understand why these two statements are different and if I can help break it down for you. - Darouet ( talk) 06:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources
"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump "
— Reuters
This ODNI is, of course, the famed "Seventeen Agencies" we are constantly hearing reference to.
This goes contrary to much in the article and lead, namely that the allegations the Russians were attempting to elect Trump was a "consensus of multiple intelligence agencies" when it, evidently, is not. We also know the FBI does not buy into that theory either, so there absolutely IS no "consensus".
Yes, there are earlier cites from the NY Times which say this was all about electing Trump. However, this is a rapidly changing event and this article from Reuters just came out yesterday. This is yet another reason for use to stop treating Wikipedia like a newspaper.
I would like to remind those of us who have got it fixed into their minds that any Russian hacking must, obviously, be to aid Trump, that prior to the election, the buzz was that the Russians were going to hack the election not be to sway the election in one direction or another, officials said, but to cause chaos. Seems to me they may have succeeded in that. Marteau ( talk) 08:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Detailed investigation by The New York Times, can be used in this article. Sagecandor ( talk) 22:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Please notice that I have put this article under active arbitration remedies, see the top of the page. The most important restrictions are a 1RR restriction — no editor may make more than one revert per 24 hours — and a consensus requirement, whereby editors must obtain consensus here on talk before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). Bishonen | talk 20:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Bishonen, or perhaps MelanieN: Would one of you kind and talented admins please add an edit notice to the article so that editors can't claim that they didn't know about the restrictions? Like this: Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016. Here's where to put it: Template:Editnotices/Page/2016 United States election interference by Russia. Many thanks.- Mr X 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Not just "presidential election".
So article title should just say "election" and not "presidential election".
Sagecandor ( talk) 03:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I read the article, and found no facts proving Russian involvement. There are only various opinions, including of the "intelligence community" and the former Ambassador, but no facts. Is there a policy for labeling things "conspiracy theory"? What prevents wikipedia from saying this is a conspiracy theory? Yurivict ( talk) 11:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
"In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals."
— Washington Post
-- I am One of Many ( talk) 22:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Under "Electoral College", "Democratic" was taken out. Why?. And the description of Christine Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter, was also removed. The source clearly describes the elector request as: "The request represents the latest effort by Democratic electors to look to the Electoral College as a possible bulwark against a Trump presidency." 11Eternity11 ( talk) 07:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek since you made this edit, I would like to know what issues you had with describing these Democratic electors as "Democratic electors" and stating that Christine Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's daughter? 11Eternity11 ( talk) 06:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted two edits that made SYNTHy insinuations. Any sources that directly and explicitly express doubt as to the Russian interference should be presented and evaluated in policy-compliant manner, including as to RS, WEIGHT, and V. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it is important to note somewhere that the hacking/interference was allegedly conducted by the Russia’s GRU military intelligence (hence the possible sanctions), as noted here and here. There are other military and intelligence organizations in Russia, but that one was specifically involved according to the publications. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This "what we know so far" piece just published by the New York Times might be a useful source of citations and statements for this article.-- DarTar ( talk) 01:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Not just "presidential" election in 2016.
Multiple elections.
Article title should NOT say "presidential" but just "election" or "elections" in title.
Sagecandor ( talk) 02:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: I hate to point out the obvious here, but BLP relates to information regarding living persons. So, using it as grounds for this edit is confusing to me. - Scarpy ( talk) 19:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Sagecandor ( talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I know amid all the squabbling people lose sight of the basics, but the opening para is currently a repetitive, unreadable and misleading mess:
The first three sentences basically say exactly the same thing. I understand the principle of gradually expanding in detail from an initial broad description, but this is hardly doing that. And in the fourth sentence, it explicitly says that the original October announcement asserted that the actions were aimed at favouring Trump, possibly because the reference to "report" has become misplaced amid mass editing (that specific claim of motive only came this month of course). None of the cited sources for the sentence justify the content of it, and all are dated to October. N-HH talk/ edits 08:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
In this edit, I changed the text so that we directly quote from the NYT text, instead of cherry-picking to include only parts that imply strong confidence in the analysis of old intelligence.
Here is the NYT paragraph in full:
"The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."
Here is how the article characterized the source prior to my edit:
"This conclusion was based on significant
circumstantial evidence before the election."
Here is how the article characterizes the source after my edit:
"This conclusion was based on what "many believe is overwhelming
circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments," obtained before the election."
I think we should consider including an addendum that the NYT also provided - that the "conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence." This is another qualifier and it is possible to paraphrase it. - Darouet ( talk) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
How about this:
This conclusion was based on circumstantial evidence gathered prior to the election, while others in the intelligence community felt they could not come to strong conclusions. [1]
Better wording for compromise to all ? Sagecandor ( talk) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
References
many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments
This conclusion was based on significant circumstantial evidence gathered prior to the election; others felt there was not enough evidence to draw strong conclusions. [1]
References
many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments
You may be corrrect that it's about just the goals aspect of the conclusions. I think your point is based on the opening paragraph of the NYT article [27],
And I think your point is also based on the part of the paragraph about the opinion of several American officials.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
[Update: Volunteer Marek deleted [28] the edit of Darouet that we have been working on. This seems disruptive since the editor has been part of this discussion, and may be subject to discretionary sanctions, although it may not violate the specific ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. Note that the newer version we have been working on can be added without any violation if it has consensus. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm too busy with real life now to edit here at the moment. The full quote of the NYT explains itself. Here, Marek maintains that hedging language, uncertainty, or attribution as they appear in sources - that the exact language of the sources themselves - constitute POV pushing. I can't stop you from going down this road. I'll return to this article (and Wikipedia) when I have time. - Darouet ( talk) 16:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain why [31] this quote, from a "former British ambassador" to... Uzbekistan (who was removed from office for disciplinary reasons) is ok, but this quote from an actual CIA officer is not? And don't even try it with the "BLP vio". It's not. It's a direct, well sourced quote from a notable subject (unlike the Uzbekistani guy quote). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
who was removed from office for disciplinary reasons". That's not really apparent from a cursory read of Craig Murray. It may be nominally true, like saying " Nikolai Bukharin got shot for being a Nazi agent," but it may not be whole story. Probably best to refrain—per WP:BLP—from making these insinuations when debating sources. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 21:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC) (Added indentation- see edit summary) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
"In other words, DON’T believe them because they won’t name names but DO believe me because I won’t names, either?"Not really. To put it mildly, it is not clear the CIA have any direct evidence, nevermind actual names. Nobody in the CIA or NSA even claims they do. Multiple sources have argued that they should come forward with any evidence they have (if they have it), because to do otherwise is to invite future attacks. There are compelling national security reasons for them to come forward with evidence, and no clear national security reasons for them to drag their feet. Assange and (possibly) Murray are wikileaks insiders who claim to know the source. It is plainly obvious why they won't name that source. Russia would know for a fact too and they've denied it. But we all know the Russians can't be trusted (which is true enough), unlike anonymous CIA sources and US politicians, who are so "credible" that they don't have to argue their case or offer evidence. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 17:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hadn’t even noticed this blatant BLP violation. But of course! Now the Murray quote makes sense: "We know who the source is/are/is ("I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider.") but we’re not saying. Let’s just mention the name of the DNC staffer who was killed during an attempted robbery." Honi soit qui mal y pense. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Glenn Carle - it's an accurate quote, fully fully attributed in text to a noteworthy person (Carle), and cited in a reliable source (The Guardian article written by its national security editor). Since we are not making any assertion, since this is carefully attributed, and since it represents a noteworthy perspective, I can see no reason to exclude it. I certainly take issue with the implication that it's somehow "a BLP vio" to accurately reflect what he really said. I would be curious what specific provision of BLP others think applies. Neutrality talk 14:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
New information from NBC News on personal involvement by Vladimir Putin in directing the covert operation. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News each independently spoke to different U.S. and foreign intelligence officials who separately said Vladimir Putin was directly involved in the covert operation. Sagecandor ( talk) 18:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with removal of source Adrian Chen with this edit [32].
Adrian Chen is not being cited as a foreign policy expert.
He is being cited as an expert on online and social media.
He is a staff writer for The New Yorker and his research on Russian trolls has been widely cited.
This material should be added back to the article.
Sagecandor ( talk) 02:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Info was added sourced to Townhall.com [33] and again at [34].
As far as I can tell, this was parroted by "The Blaze" [35] and BizPacReview.com [36].
Is this a reliable source ? Is this WP:UNDUE WEIGHT ? Sagecandor ( talk) 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Any reason why he's being left out? Here's a recent source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html -- just wondering, don't have time for an edit war. Matt714 ( talk) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
He's cited in this piece. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report -- Also any authoritative discussions regarding the Daily Mail being an unreliable source on Wiki? It's frequently cited elsewhere... it's one of the biggest UK newspapers. Matt714 ( talk) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/ Washington Times Matt714 ( talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked the info. There appears to be no justification for removal besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Angelsi 1989 ( talk) 04:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The Hill reported on December 15, 2016, that Assange said during an appearance on the radio program Hannity on the same day that while the leaks of Democratic materials provided to journalists at The Hill and Gawker could have been from Russia, he was "confident the emails he received did not come from the same source". He stated that Wikileaks’s source was not the Russian government, a departure from "a longstanding WikiLeaks policy of not making any comment about sources", according to The Hill. Assange further said that Wikileaks had received material on the RNC but had not published them "because they had already been printed elsewhere".
This edit [38] appears to create WP:UNDUE WEIGHT for source consortiumnews.com, which I'm not even sure is a reliable source here.
In addition with regards to the group behind the memo, this description is not encouraging: "an activist group which both farms out opinions critical of mainstream Republicans and sometimes peddles in conspiracy".
If this development has not been covered by multiple other independent reliable secondary sources other than the primary source itself [39] -- it should be removed. Sagecandor ( talk) 02:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Should we develop a subpage that details the linkages to Russia of Trump's business, his campaign, and his upcoming administration? The new secutary of state has deep ties to Russia, Paul Manafort advocated Russian interests in the Ukraine, etc. Numourous secondary sources cite this and it seems to be pretty unique. Casprings ( talk) 13:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are a multitude of sources discussing this separate topic:
Here are some sources that are examples. Sagecandor ( talk) 01:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Article title should NOT have "presidential" in it. NOT just "presidential" campaign, covert operations impacted multiple other U.S. elections. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The whole media section should be deleted from this article. It reads like play-by-play color commentary from the press booth. It's a grab-bag if intramural press shop talk, propaganda, self-interested denials, and other recent, dubious, and cherry-picked opinion that does not relate to the substance of the events or their significance and veracity. I considered deleting the section, but decided to raise it here on talk first. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This at least convinces me I'm not entirely off the mark on this, so I will delete it and then if any of the content should be reintroduced, we can discuss and achieve consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Article should be updated. Casprings ( talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Just like it says, this article is based on nothing. There is no credible evidence that supports any of these claims. They are all hearsay, and would not be admissible in a court of law. They should not be treated as credible. It is highly contentious, potentially libelous, and breaks many of WP's own rules. 98.194.39.86 ( talk) 08:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
An intelligence official explained to Reuters that due to Putin's prior experience as an operative for the
KGB, he maintained tighter control over Russian intelligence operations.
KGB experience of Vladimir Putin seems directly relevant to the covert operations. Was removed here [43], with edit summary: "as chief executive, it seems implicit that Putin would ultimately be responsible for all the Russian government's actions"
No, it would not have been "implicit", as some chief executives are micro-managers, and some are not.
Can this go back in the article? Sagecandor ( talk) 23:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is filling up with quotes and remarks that aren't of any real, lasting importance to the subject. I suggest that WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:NOTNEWS be reviewed. The subject is notable beyond question but the article could probably be a lot shorter than it is. Try to think about we know now that some reader would find useful ten years from now, and that's what should stay. Also, generally try to avoid quotes entirely unless the meaning of a statement is ambiguous. That's an important difference between encyclopedic and journalistic writing styles. Since most of the sources are written in the latter, there's always that temptation to imitate it here. Geogene ( talk) 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
We need consistency. Should it be R.N.C. or RNC? We're using both, and unless we're quoting, we can choose. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
"Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion. ... The possibility that Russians tried and failed to infiltrate the RNC doesn't necessarily conflict with the CIA's conclusion. A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats. ... But the fact that they failed doesn't mean they preferred one candidate over another, nor that they don't harbor plans to leak embarrassing information about Republicans or Mr. Trump in the future." It's sure looking like this article is going to need a revamp real soon. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 21:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election. Hmmm, we very well might have to revamp it though perhaps not in the way you expect. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:Neutral point of view.
To be considered ethical then this article needs to reflect a world wide point of view. Not only does the article need expert opinions of American Intel agents to provide evidence, but per Wiki guidelines this needs to allow Russia and other countries to weigh in on the alleged phenomenon. Anything else is not in keeping with the standards that wikipedia has set.
Wikipedia also demands that weasel words be removed from all articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:F194:899C:1151:B7BE ( talk) 09:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think know of any other interference. Why have the 2016 in the title. A title that simply read United States Election interference by Russia would be shorter and better. Casprings ( talk) 14:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Navbox removed [44] with edit summary: (Article is not in navbox).
Article seems directly relevant to topic of the navbox.
Does article have to be in navbox to have the navbox on the page ?
Sagecandor ( talk) 00:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Tump's transition team dismissed the CIA's conclusions, stating:
"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." @
SPECIFICO:
edited Wikipedia to read: "The statement falsely said that those at the CIA who concluded Russian interference in the election, were the same individuals who asserted in 2003 that
Iraq leader
Saddam Hussein was in possession of
weapons of mass destruction." As evidence, SPECIFICO cited
this 2015 interview with
Michael Morell, which has nothing to do with Trump or allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election but in which Morell acknowledges "the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence" on Iraq's WMD. SPECIFICO's edit is
synthesis and
original research of the crudest and most blatant variety, and needs to be reverted immediately. Note that SPECIFICO is not even good at this: Morell briefed President Bush on Iraq, and then became Director of Central Intelligence under Obama, so citing him only reminds us that the CIA hasn't changed much since 2003—while Morell's admission that the CIA intentionally lied in the past is only likely to reinforce Trump's claim that we should be skeptical of the Agency's conclusions. The thrust of Trump's argument relates to the CIA's long history of institutional intelligence failures—from the Iranian Revolution to 9/11—but if SPECIFICO wanted to nitpick the literal meaning of Trump's statement, then they should have cited
Glenn Kessler:
"Trump's complaint about this semi-ancient history is a bit odd because a) the intelligence analysts who worked on Middle East WMDs are not going to be the same as analysts focused on Russian cyber-behavior; b) the intelligence collection for hacking in the United States by overseas powers would be different from assessing illicit weapons programs in the Middle East; and c) reforms were put in place after the Iraq War to make it harder for suspect intelligence to bubble up to the top ranks without careful scrutiny." (Because this type of editing is typical for SPECIFICO, SPECIFICO's actions need to be scrutinized much more closely than they have been—not because SPECIFICO is a POV-pusher, but because so many of their edits display such an obvious lack of basic
competence).
TheTimesAreAChanging (
talk)
02:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
::If SPECIFICO didn't have a long record of comparable behavior—all under the aegis of "clarify" or
"conform to cited source"—I wouldn't raise the issue. At this point, however, it is certainly a very real concern that SPECIFICO cannot be trusted to accurately convey what sources say.
TheTimesAreAChanging (
talk)
03:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
This change says "bipartisan letter issued on December 18" ?
The letter was released on December 11, seen at http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/mccain-graham-schumer-reed-joint-statement-on-reports-that-russia-interfered-with-the-2016-election
Was there a 2nd, newer bipartisan letter ?
Or is The New York Times referring to the first one, and there was no 2nd one on December 18 ? Sagecandor ( talk) 05:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with this opening change [46].
The intro should be at least a good three or four paragraphs, judging by the length of the article.
It should concisely summarize the entire article per WP:LEAD.
This was way too drastic. Sagecandor ( talk) 05:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that the election itself is the casting and tabulation of votes, the title is misleading. There's been no allegation and no proof that the tabulation of votes was interfered with Russian actors. Nor has there been any proof offered that voters themselves were coerced or bribed by Russian actors. Thus if there was interference, it was only in the destabilizing of the pro-Hillary MSM media narrative. And yes, that took place in large measure because of the WikiLeaks publications of the Podesta emails. But those email leaks have been attributed (by Julian Assange and other knowledgeable persons) to disgruntled Democrat persons. Thus, the entire premise of the contention that Russia "interfered" with the USA election is a MSM-driven fabrication aimed at helping Democrats recapture a media-driven framing of the materiality of what's what. That narrative broke down in 2016 via a combination of Red State voters flooding independently to social media, the effectiveness of Trump's tweets and rally(s) and also, the WikiLeaks revelations. And these points being true, it's not honest to say that Russia "interfered" with the election. 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 13:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be mention of the recklessness of the DNC and Hillary Clinton that contributed to the hack taking place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.211.52 ( talk) 14:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
So if someone breaks into your house but does not do anything that is not interference with your doors? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
With this edit [48] - is Newsmax.com a reliable source ?
Not seeing this info picked up by other sources ?
Can this be removed ? Sagecandor ( talk) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The Newsmax article was written by Ed Klein. Note that Klein is a columnist not a reporter for Newsmax hence it fails reliable sources. Some editors have argued that this type of column is an exception because it is a "news column," not an "opinion column." Note too that although it is not clear at first, Klein uses the expression "according to sources." If we accept it as a reliable source then we would have to be clear about that. TFD ( talk) 01:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Since no evidence was provided for this particular conspiracy theory ? I also note that the article is highly biased towards one side here, without any criticism of lack of evidence to claims by supporters of this theory in the article.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@ MrX, Sagecandor, and N-HH: The CIA has many tasks, among them the overthrow of many governments in the last 65 years, and the propagation of disinformation to cover up these actions (as many CIA agents have later testified). The CIA is not a news organization or an encyclopedia, it's a clandestine intelligence service, and that's how we should approach it when noting any public statements it produces.
Furthermore, the existence or lack of existence of a neutral body to adjudicate allegations of election tampering from Russia cannot lead us to proceed from the wildly speculative assumption that any accusation should be considered true unless proven otherwise. - Darouet ( talk) 00:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Sagecandor and MrX: The title of this article and your comments here all strongly imply these allegations are not merely allegations, but that Russia has interfered in the U.S. election, and we need to relate that fact. This is not known as a fact. By insisting on the current title, "Russian influence," you are seriously misleading readers. There has been enough discussion about this that it's not longer appropriate to assume you don't know the implications of the title of the article. - Darouet ( talk) 01:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be more precise to say 'campaign' rather than 'election'. The latter, even if it can be an umbrella for anything, necessarily evokes the actual casting and counting of votes, and given that this article is NOT about the claims of voting machine hacking that were made earlier, it would be logical to do everything possible to clear that up. 79.169.98.40 ( talk) 22:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Russian interference with the 2016 election cycle in the United States" ... or to include the impact of quasi-NGOs such as WikiLeaks, and propaganda both covert and open in the form of endorsing candidates and such, the topic-area could be broadened to " International influences on the 2016 election cycle in the United States" using almost the same model as International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 (except that the reactions-article is about post-election stuff only whereas the use of '2016 election cycle' also permits talking about campaigns and pre-campaign influences). 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 03:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's some background information on Ken Dilanian's—and Scott Shane's—past history of collaboration with the CIA. It's probably no coincidence that Dilanian helped break the news of Putin's alleged involvement for NBC—just as it's no coincidence that the CIA first leaked this story to its favorite newspaper (The Washington Post). TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Close request from blocked user 11Eternity11 ( talk · contribs) in favor of newer request below started on 21 December 2016. Sagecandor ( talk) 18:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign – The title of this article says "interference" in the US "election". The word "election" implies that Russia interfered with the voting process, as "election" means: "the selection of a person or persons for office by vote." [1] The article, however, doesn't mention Russia interfering with the voting process, but releasing private DNC emails and promoting propaganda. In order to ensure clarity of title, I suggest the page be moved to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign" to reflect that the interference occurred with the campaigning (generating opinions, etc.) and not the voting process itself. 11Eternity11 ( talk) 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC) References Why is the current title even what it is right now? It was moved by Sagecandor without any discussion I can find, and no move request. It's also a WP:POVTITLE because declares Russia's guilt, which has been stated by US officials and agencies, but is not known. Concision is the worst excuse for falsehood I've ever seen someone make for an article title. - Darouet ( talk) 05:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I've changed it to "alleged," to remove the most glaring problem facing the article at present. - Darouet ( talk) 05:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments
|
Close request from blocked user 11Eternity11 ( talk · contribs) in favor of newer request below started on 21 December 2016.
Please see Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_21_December_2016. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior. 'The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards — can we prove this in court'" one of the officials said. 'The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means 'we're pretty damn sure.' It doesn't mean they can prove it in court.'
This article explains some of the cultural differences between the FBI and CIA.
They may have similar information, just different standards.
FBI must prove its conclusions in a court of law.
CIA just thinks about what it can state with "high confidence" and deliver as an analysis to the President. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:US 2016 presidential elections series on whether that navbox should include a link to this article. Editors are invited to participate. Neutrality talk 16:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If Rex Tillerson is widely being reported as Trump's choice for the next secretary of state. If that does occur, this article should provide a quick summation of his links to Russia and a link to his page. Casprings ( talk) 05:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of The Washington Post story says:
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
Yes, there is a quote below it that states it is from "a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. Senators" However, that is one source within the story. Its pretty clear from the opening statement what is being reported and there are multiple means for a reporter to fact check. Casprings ( talk) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Article currently says: "On December 9, U.S. intelligence concluded that the Russian government was involved in hacking servers of the Republican National Committee (RNC) – but said they did not release the content of the hack in a desire to tilt the election in favor of the Republican party's candidate" and cites http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0
The Post says no such thing. In fact, regarding the RNC hacks, they explicitly say "It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.". The Post says NOTHING about the Russians withholding RNC data to "favor the republican".
The Post DOES say the Russians hacked in order to "promote Donald Trump" but considering the context, and the explicit mention of the RNC hacks later in the article, this almost certainly pertains to the DNC hacks, not the RNC hacks.
I'm going to go ahead and remove any attribution of motive pertaining to the RNC hacks, because the Post says motive is "far from clear". Marteau ( talk) 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
"American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.
They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."
— New York Times
I have started a request for comment on what the WP:WEIGHT of the information contained in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in articles and templates that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. The WP:RFC is located here. Casprings ( talk) 01:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Darouet, please do NOT change merge tags during the ongoing discussion, as you did at [1] and [2].
This is disruptive.
Several are already against this, already stated, above, including Casprings, Neutrality, and MrX.
Let the original discussion play its course please.
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 01:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
"Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies represented by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election."
... is the latest iteration of the first sentence of this article.
That sentence completely misrepresents what the source says. The source ACTUALLY says:
"In fact, in early October, the director of national intelligence, representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security said they were confident that the Russian government had directed the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee and a top Clinton adviser."
"Seventeen agencies" absolutely did NOT "conclude". The Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (who represent 17 agencies) came to that conclusion. Because they represent 17 agencies, you can't say that 17 agencies came to that conclusion.
This re-phrasing is highly misleading and illogical. It would have us believe that, for example, the Department of Energy (one of those 17 agencies) independently came to the conclusion that Russia hacked the election. Or that the DEA did so, as well.
I would revert, but I already have one for today. But this edit is highly misleading, outrageous, misrepresents the source, and is an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Marteau ( talk) 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
With regard to this edit, I understand that there are references specifically referring to Russia's "denial," but "skepticism" is arguably a better and more neutral term for the section in question, because it covers much more than Russia's official line. Moreover, "denial" is often used as a pejorative term to denigrate individuals that refuse to accept facts despite overwhelming evidence ( Holocaust denial being the classic example). Given that the CIA leaked these allegations to the press before the inquiry ordered by Obama had even begun, and no hard evidence is currently available, it would be desirable to avoid the implication that Greenwald et al. are "deniers." TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 12:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Russian statements, WP:CLAIM states, "be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability." The Russian government is not a living person, but the verb "deny" may imply culpability. So, "Russian government response" or something like that is fine, and avoids the editorial suggestion that they are "guilty."
More importantly however the majority of this section currently deals with other voices that are skeptical of the allegations made by U.S. officials. "Denial," even beyond the POV issue raised above, doesn't describe them, and therefore mischaracterizes the majority of the section. It should be renamed. - Darouet ( talk) 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree his personal opinion can be in the article.
But let's keep these in the section, Media commentary. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. We should not just list the opinions of the first journalists who state an opinion. Especially self-published. Trump's view can be stated because he is directly involved in various aspects of the matter, including his exhortation to the Russians that may have resulted in this crime. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I share SPECIFICO's wariness to including instantaneous punditry here. But as long as we're including Greenwald, he can't stand alone, because that is the epitome of undue. I've added two op-eds: one from Russia expert and academic Michael McFaul and the other from historian Robert S. McElvaine. Neutrality talk 20:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Greenwald, writing in the Intercept is a WP:SPS. There's no reason to include it unless other sources comment on it extensively. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.Greenwald is indeed an established expert on the subject matter of government surveillance, influence peddling, information leaks and propaganda; his work has been previously published by "reliable third-party publications" called Salon, The Guardian and The Washington Post. The fact that he now self-publishes (with financial support from noted philanthropist Pierre Omidyar) does not in any way diminish his credibility. Ergo, SPS supports Wikipedia quoting him here. — JFG talk 06:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
"WikiLeaks' Julian Assange has insisted that the Russian government is not the source of the Podesta and DNC e-mails. That may well be true, and it can still be true even if the Russian government had a hand in directing or funding the operation. But that is all speculation—the only way that the full scope of Russia's involvement in the hacking campaign and other aspects of the information campaign against Clinton (and for Trump) will be known is if the Obama administration publishes conclusive evidence in a form that can be independently analyzed.". This call to produce direct evidence has been echoed exactly by a lead article in the Intercept. Snowden made the same point very early on. Of course, within the standard propaganda framework, calling for evidence and accountability in response to allegations of a vast and venal conspiracy by the designated enemy is sacrilege (see FP's absurd whataboutism for an illustration): such a rash demand only serves to unmask you as yet another member of that same vast conspiracy. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Intelligence agencies are massive and complex institutions, and what they "conclude" can be ambiguous even decades after events have occurred. These statements in the Washington Post and NPR:
"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter." WashPo
and
"The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump win the presidency, a U.S. official has confirmed to NPR." NPR
show that U.S. officials have told news organizations that the CIA has concluded Russia intervened in the U.S. election to help Trump. That is what these sources say. We do not know, from these sources, what the CIA has concluded.
All assertions in this article should be properly attributed. Media organizations are not always neutral, and do not always use neutral language, etc., but at a bare minimum we need to be as cautious as they are. This is an encyclopedia. - Darouet ( talk) 19:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
"these actors who obtained this material and delivered it to WikiLeaks were described to us as being one step removed from Russian intelligence services as known entities... known affiliations with those Russian intelligence services, but nevertheless not necessarily specifically part of those services... [FBI] Director Comey, notably, did not sign off — at least publicly — on the letter that the director of national intelligence and director of homeland security issued in late October, accusing Russia..."
"U.S. agencies believe they have identified who in the Russian government was involved in ordering operations to disrupt the U.S. election and how they were orchestrated. They are reluctant to make the information public because that could compromise how the intelligence was gathered, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "
I have made a post here, User talk:Jimbo Wales#Systematic problems at US-Russia articles, because I think this is a very serious issue. - Darouet ( talk) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC) @ Neutrality, Casprings, Sagecandor, and MrX: - Darouet ( talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources say "CIA said X". That's all there is to it. Any kind of spin on that is just original research. That's it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Please, all, stop adding new info directly into the lead.
Instead, add it to the article body text, and then summarize it back up top in the lead.
This way, hopefully, the WP:LEAD will be a summary, not an article in its own right LOL.
Thanks ! Sagecandor ( talk) 03:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph, as it currently stands, contains a concise summary of the article. I recommend we cull the last three paragraphs. BlueSalix ( talk) 14:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Can we please try to limit it to no more than three citations per statement, at least in the intro? Sagecandor ( talk) 20:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Right now we state that the FBI believes Russia interfered in the US election, based on this quote from the Washington Post: "The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling. “There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals,” said one U.S. official."
.
[8] We have other sources that cite the WashPo article:
[9]
[10]
[11]. FBI officials may be convinced that the Russians are behind the breaches, and perhaps we can find older articles verifying this? But the statement of a single anonymous U.S. official on the matter should not be sufficient for us here to reproduce the statement's content as truth, instead of attributing it. -
Darouet (
talk)
20:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's please use chronological order for the intro.
Please stop adding new info to the intro.
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 20:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Suggest we get rid of recent edits by Will to Truth ( talk · contribs) [15] [16] [17] as they violate WP:LEAD, introducing new info directly to intro without first being in article body text. They also seem to violate WP:NPOV. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Re the following items that I've just taken out of the lead.
-- Neutrality talk 15:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
“ | United States intelligence agencies have accused the Russian Federation of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a claim Russia denies. The CIA has suggested the alleged interference was done to help the presidential ambitions of then-candidate Donald Trump, though the FBI has disputed this conclusion. The claims and counter-claims have generated intense public discussion by media and political commentators with some, like Michael McFaul and Robert S. McElvaine, decrying the alleged Russian interference while others, such as Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald, have questioned whether any interference actually occurred. | ” |
I more or less agree with Neutrality. I'd exclude Greenwald unless somehow it becomes prominent, as there's nothing that distinguishes him in this particular case from scores of other pundits. I'd keep Reid in the text not in the lede. The Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman comment I would also keep but not in the lede. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict) (The bloody page name changed in mid edit!) All of these names should remain out of the lead, per Neutrality. Opinions, commentary, and speculation by individuals does not rise to level of importance to justify including in the lead. I would support omitting them entirely from the article, but I don;t feel as strongly about it. Comparing the Washington Post's article with any of the commentary is like comparing elephants to Barbie dolls. - Mr X 18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
US officials and agencies have alleged that Russia intervened in the US election, and this is a known and accepted fact. Russia denies these allegations and whether they are true remains contested. Per WP:POVTITLE, I've moved the page to Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia, because the previous title was an egregious POV violation. - Darouet ( talk) 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Re [19]. Please stop. This edit is not based on any sources except one editors idiosyncratic opinion. And it makes the sentence factually incorrect since allegations of Russian interference were NOT first made in October, they were made as far back as March IIRC. The whole importance of what this article is about is that these allegations have now been publicly acknowledged by the intelligence agencies. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
"these allegations have now been publicly acknowledged by the intelligence agencies"(the wording you defend here at talk), and
"2016 United States election interference by Russia was first acknowleged publicly by the U.S. government in an October 2016 letter from the U.S. Intelligence Community."[sic] (the wording you just wrote into the first sentence of the lead). The first sentence is defensible by sources, the second isn't. Let me know if you don't understand why these two statements are different and if I can help break it down for you. - Darouet ( talk) 06:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources
"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump "
— Reuters
This ODNI is, of course, the famed "Seventeen Agencies" we are constantly hearing reference to.
This goes contrary to much in the article and lead, namely that the allegations the Russians were attempting to elect Trump was a "consensus of multiple intelligence agencies" when it, evidently, is not. We also know the FBI does not buy into that theory either, so there absolutely IS no "consensus".
Yes, there are earlier cites from the NY Times which say this was all about electing Trump. However, this is a rapidly changing event and this article from Reuters just came out yesterday. This is yet another reason for use to stop treating Wikipedia like a newspaper.
I would like to remind those of us who have got it fixed into their minds that any Russian hacking must, obviously, be to aid Trump, that prior to the election, the buzz was that the Russians were going to hack the election not be to sway the election in one direction or another, officials said, but to cause chaos. Seems to me they may have succeeded in that. Marteau ( talk) 08:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Detailed investigation by The New York Times, can be used in this article. Sagecandor ( talk) 22:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Please notice that I have put this article under active arbitration remedies, see the top of the page. The most important restrictions are a 1RR restriction — no editor may make more than one revert per 24 hours — and a consensus requirement, whereby editors must obtain consensus here on talk before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). Bishonen | talk 20:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Bishonen, or perhaps MelanieN: Would one of you kind and talented admins please add an edit notice to the article so that editors can't claim that they didn't know about the restrictions? Like this: Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016. Here's where to put it: Template:Editnotices/Page/2016 United States election interference by Russia. Many thanks.- Mr X 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Not just "presidential election".
So article title should just say "election" and not "presidential election".
Sagecandor ( talk) 03:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I read the article, and found no facts proving Russian involvement. There are only various opinions, including of the "intelligence community" and the former Ambassador, but no facts. Is there a policy for labeling things "conspiracy theory"? What prevents wikipedia from saying this is a conspiracy theory? Yurivict ( talk) 11:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
"In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals."
— Washington Post
-- I am One of Many ( talk) 22:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Under "Electoral College", "Democratic" was taken out. Why?. And the description of Christine Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter, was also removed. The source clearly describes the elector request as: "The request represents the latest effort by Democratic electors to look to the Electoral College as a possible bulwark against a Trump presidency." 11Eternity11 ( talk) 07:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek since you made this edit, I would like to know what issues you had with describing these Democratic electors as "Democratic electors" and stating that Christine Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's daughter? 11Eternity11 ( talk) 06:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted two edits that made SYNTHy insinuations. Any sources that directly and explicitly express doubt as to the Russian interference should be presented and evaluated in policy-compliant manner, including as to RS, WEIGHT, and V. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it is important to note somewhere that the hacking/interference was allegedly conducted by the Russia’s GRU military intelligence (hence the possible sanctions), as noted here and here. There are other military and intelligence organizations in Russia, but that one was specifically involved according to the publications. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This "what we know so far" piece just published by the New York Times might be a useful source of citations and statements for this article.-- DarTar ( talk) 01:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Not just "presidential" election in 2016.
Multiple elections.
Article title should NOT say "presidential" but just "election" or "elections" in title.
Sagecandor ( talk) 02:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: I hate to point out the obvious here, but BLP relates to information regarding living persons. So, using it as grounds for this edit is confusing to me. - Scarpy ( talk) 19:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Sagecandor ( talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I know amid all the squabbling people lose sight of the basics, but the opening para is currently a repetitive, unreadable and misleading mess:
The first three sentences basically say exactly the same thing. I understand the principle of gradually expanding in detail from an initial broad description, but this is hardly doing that. And in the fourth sentence, it explicitly says that the original October announcement asserted that the actions were aimed at favouring Trump, possibly because the reference to "report" has become misplaced amid mass editing (that specific claim of motive only came this month of course). None of the cited sources for the sentence justify the content of it, and all are dated to October. N-HH talk/ edits 08:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
In this edit, I changed the text so that we directly quote from the NYT text, instead of cherry-picking to include only parts that imply strong confidence in the analysis of old intelligence.
Here is the NYT paragraph in full:
"The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."
Here is how the article characterized the source prior to my edit:
"This conclusion was based on significant
circumstantial evidence before the election."
Here is how the article characterizes the source after my edit:
"This conclusion was based on what "many believe is overwhelming
circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments," obtained before the election."
I think we should consider including an addendum that the NYT also provided - that the "conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence." This is another qualifier and it is possible to paraphrase it. - Darouet ( talk) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
How about this:
This conclusion was based on circumstantial evidence gathered prior to the election, while others in the intelligence community felt they could not come to strong conclusions. [1]
Better wording for compromise to all ? Sagecandor ( talk) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
References
many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments
This conclusion was based on significant circumstantial evidence gathered prior to the election; others felt there was not enough evidence to draw strong conclusions. [1]
References
many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments
You may be corrrect that it's about just the goals aspect of the conclusions. I think your point is based on the opening paragraph of the NYT article [27],
And I think your point is also based on the part of the paragraph about the opinion of several American officials.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
[Update: Volunteer Marek deleted [28] the edit of Darouet that we have been working on. This seems disruptive since the editor has been part of this discussion, and may be subject to discretionary sanctions, although it may not violate the specific ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. Note that the newer version we have been working on can be added without any violation if it has consensus. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm too busy with real life now to edit here at the moment. The full quote of the NYT explains itself. Here, Marek maintains that hedging language, uncertainty, or attribution as they appear in sources - that the exact language of the sources themselves - constitute POV pushing. I can't stop you from going down this road. I'll return to this article (and Wikipedia) when I have time. - Darouet ( talk) 16:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain why [31] this quote, from a "former British ambassador" to... Uzbekistan (who was removed from office for disciplinary reasons) is ok, but this quote from an actual CIA officer is not? And don't even try it with the "BLP vio". It's not. It's a direct, well sourced quote from a notable subject (unlike the Uzbekistani guy quote). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
who was removed from office for disciplinary reasons". That's not really apparent from a cursory read of Craig Murray. It may be nominally true, like saying " Nikolai Bukharin got shot for being a Nazi agent," but it may not be whole story. Probably best to refrain—per WP:BLP—from making these insinuations when debating sources. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 21:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC) (Added indentation- see edit summary) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
"In other words, DON’T believe them because they won’t name names but DO believe me because I won’t names, either?"Not really. To put it mildly, it is not clear the CIA have any direct evidence, nevermind actual names. Nobody in the CIA or NSA even claims they do. Multiple sources have argued that they should come forward with any evidence they have (if they have it), because to do otherwise is to invite future attacks. There are compelling national security reasons for them to come forward with evidence, and no clear national security reasons for them to drag their feet. Assange and (possibly) Murray are wikileaks insiders who claim to know the source. It is plainly obvious why they won't name that source. Russia would know for a fact too and they've denied it. But we all know the Russians can't be trusted (which is true enough), unlike anonymous CIA sources and US politicians, who are so "credible" that they don't have to argue their case or offer evidence. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 17:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hadn’t even noticed this blatant BLP violation. But of course! Now the Murray quote makes sense: "We know who the source is/are/is ("I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider.") but we’re not saying. Let’s just mention the name of the DNC staffer who was killed during an attempted robbery." Honi soit qui mal y pense. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Glenn Carle - it's an accurate quote, fully fully attributed in text to a noteworthy person (Carle), and cited in a reliable source (The Guardian article written by its national security editor). Since we are not making any assertion, since this is carefully attributed, and since it represents a noteworthy perspective, I can see no reason to exclude it. I certainly take issue with the implication that it's somehow "a BLP vio" to accurately reflect what he really said. I would be curious what specific provision of BLP others think applies. Neutrality talk 14:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
New information from NBC News on personal involvement by Vladimir Putin in directing the covert operation. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News each independently spoke to different U.S. and foreign intelligence officials who separately said Vladimir Putin was directly involved in the covert operation. Sagecandor ( talk) 18:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with removal of source Adrian Chen with this edit [32].
Adrian Chen is not being cited as a foreign policy expert.
He is being cited as an expert on online and social media.
He is a staff writer for The New Yorker and his research on Russian trolls has been widely cited.
This material should be added back to the article.
Sagecandor ( talk) 02:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Info was added sourced to Townhall.com [33] and again at [34].
As far as I can tell, this was parroted by "The Blaze" [35] and BizPacReview.com [36].
Is this a reliable source ? Is this WP:UNDUE WEIGHT ? Sagecandor ( talk) 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Any reason why he's being left out? Here's a recent source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html -- just wondering, don't have time for an edit war. Matt714 ( talk) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
He's cited in this piece. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report -- Also any authoritative discussions regarding the Daily Mail being an unreliable source on Wiki? It's frequently cited elsewhere... it's one of the biggest UK newspapers. Matt714 ( talk) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/ Washington Times Matt714 ( talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked the info. There appears to be no justification for removal besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Angelsi 1989 ( talk) 04:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The Hill reported on December 15, 2016, that Assange said during an appearance on the radio program Hannity on the same day that while the leaks of Democratic materials provided to journalists at The Hill and Gawker could have been from Russia, he was "confident the emails he received did not come from the same source". He stated that Wikileaks’s source was not the Russian government, a departure from "a longstanding WikiLeaks policy of not making any comment about sources", according to The Hill. Assange further said that Wikileaks had received material on the RNC but had not published them "because they had already been printed elsewhere".
This edit [38] appears to create WP:UNDUE WEIGHT for source consortiumnews.com, which I'm not even sure is a reliable source here.
In addition with regards to the group behind the memo, this description is not encouraging: "an activist group which both farms out opinions critical of mainstream Republicans and sometimes peddles in conspiracy".
If this development has not been covered by multiple other independent reliable secondary sources other than the primary source itself [39] -- it should be removed. Sagecandor ( talk) 02:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Should we develop a subpage that details the linkages to Russia of Trump's business, his campaign, and his upcoming administration? The new secutary of state has deep ties to Russia, Paul Manafort advocated Russian interests in the Ukraine, etc. Numourous secondary sources cite this and it seems to be pretty unique. Casprings ( talk) 13:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are a multitude of sources discussing this separate topic:
Here are some sources that are examples. Sagecandor ( talk) 01:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Article title should NOT have "presidential" in it. NOT just "presidential" campaign, covert operations impacted multiple other U.S. elections. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The whole media section should be deleted from this article. It reads like play-by-play color commentary from the press booth. It's a grab-bag if intramural press shop talk, propaganda, self-interested denials, and other recent, dubious, and cherry-picked opinion that does not relate to the substance of the events or their significance and veracity. I considered deleting the section, but decided to raise it here on talk first. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This at least convinces me I'm not entirely off the mark on this, so I will delete it and then if any of the content should be reintroduced, we can discuss and achieve consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Article should be updated. Casprings ( talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Just like it says, this article is based on nothing. There is no credible evidence that supports any of these claims. They are all hearsay, and would not be admissible in a court of law. They should not be treated as credible. It is highly contentious, potentially libelous, and breaks many of WP's own rules. 98.194.39.86 ( talk) 08:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
An intelligence official explained to Reuters that due to Putin's prior experience as an operative for the
KGB, he maintained tighter control over Russian intelligence operations.
KGB experience of Vladimir Putin seems directly relevant to the covert operations. Was removed here [43], with edit summary: "as chief executive, it seems implicit that Putin would ultimately be responsible for all the Russian government's actions"
No, it would not have been "implicit", as some chief executives are micro-managers, and some are not.
Can this go back in the article? Sagecandor ( talk) 23:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is filling up with quotes and remarks that aren't of any real, lasting importance to the subject. I suggest that WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:NOTNEWS be reviewed. The subject is notable beyond question but the article could probably be a lot shorter than it is. Try to think about we know now that some reader would find useful ten years from now, and that's what should stay. Also, generally try to avoid quotes entirely unless the meaning of a statement is ambiguous. That's an important difference between encyclopedic and journalistic writing styles. Since most of the sources are written in the latter, there's always that temptation to imitate it here. Geogene ( talk) 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
We need consistency. Should it be R.N.C. or RNC? We're using both, and unless we're quoting, we can choose. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
"Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion. ... The possibility that Russians tried and failed to infiltrate the RNC doesn't necessarily conflict with the CIA's conclusion. A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats. ... But the fact that they failed doesn't mean they preferred one candidate over another, nor that they don't harbor plans to leak embarrassing information about Republicans or Mr. Trump in the future." It's sure looking like this article is going to need a revamp real soon. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 21:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election. Hmmm, we very well might have to revamp it though perhaps not in the way you expect. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:Neutral point of view.
To be considered ethical then this article needs to reflect a world wide point of view. Not only does the article need expert opinions of American Intel agents to provide evidence, but per Wiki guidelines this needs to allow Russia and other countries to weigh in on the alleged phenomenon. Anything else is not in keeping with the standards that wikipedia has set.
Wikipedia also demands that weasel words be removed from all articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:F194:899C:1151:B7BE ( talk) 09:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think know of any other interference. Why have the 2016 in the title. A title that simply read United States Election interference by Russia would be shorter and better. Casprings ( talk) 14:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Navbox removed [44] with edit summary: (Article is not in navbox).
Article seems directly relevant to topic of the navbox.
Does article have to be in navbox to have the navbox on the page ?
Sagecandor ( talk) 00:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Tump's transition team dismissed the CIA's conclusions, stating:
"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." @
SPECIFICO:
edited Wikipedia to read: "The statement falsely said that those at the CIA who concluded Russian interference in the election, were the same individuals who asserted in 2003 that
Iraq leader
Saddam Hussein was in possession of
weapons of mass destruction." As evidence, SPECIFICO cited
this 2015 interview with
Michael Morell, which has nothing to do with Trump or allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election but in which Morell acknowledges "the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence" on Iraq's WMD. SPECIFICO's edit is
synthesis and
original research of the crudest and most blatant variety, and needs to be reverted immediately. Note that SPECIFICO is not even good at this: Morell briefed President Bush on Iraq, and then became Director of Central Intelligence under Obama, so citing him only reminds us that the CIA hasn't changed much since 2003—while Morell's admission that the CIA intentionally lied in the past is only likely to reinforce Trump's claim that we should be skeptical of the Agency's conclusions. The thrust of Trump's argument relates to the CIA's long history of institutional intelligence failures—from the Iranian Revolution to 9/11—but if SPECIFICO wanted to nitpick the literal meaning of Trump's statement, then they should have cited
Glenn Kessler:
"Trump's complaint about this semi-ancient history is a bit odd because a) the intelligence analysts who worked on Middle East WMDs are not going to be the same as analysts focused on Russian cyber-behavior; b) the intelligence collection for hacking in the United States by overseas powers would be different from assessing illicit weapons programs in the Middle East; and c) reforms were put in place after the Iraq War to make it harder for suspect intelligence to bubble up to the top ranks without careful scrutiny." (Because this type of editing is typical for SPECIFICO, SPECIFICO's actions need to be scrutinized much more closely than they have been—not because SPECIFICO is a POV-pusher, but because so many of their edits display such an obvious lack of basic
competence).
TheTimesAreAChanging (
talk)
02:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
::If SPECIFICO didn't have a long record of comparable behavior—all under the aegis of "clarify" or
"conform to cited source"—I wouldn't raise the issue. At this point, however, it is certainly a very real concern that SPECIFICO cannot be trusted to accurately convey what sources say.
TheTimesAreAChanging (
talk)
03:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
This change says "bipartisan letter issued on December 18" ?
The letter was released on December 11, seen at http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/mccain-graham-schumer-reed-joint-statement-on-reports-that-russia-interfered-with-the-2016-election
Was there a 2nd, newer bipartisan letter ?
Or is The New York Times referring to the first one, and there was no 2nd one on December 18 ? Sagecandor ( talk) 05:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with this opening change [46].
The intro should be at least a good three or four paragraphs, judging by the length of the article.
It should concisely summarize the entire article per WP:LEAD.
This was way too drastic. Sagecandor ( talk) 05:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that the election itself is the casting and tabulation of votes, the title is misleading. There's been no allegation and no proof that the tabulation of votes was interfered with Russian actors. Nor has there been any proof offered that voters themselves were coerced or bribed by Russian actors. Thus if there was interference, it was only in the destabilizing of the pro-Hillary MSM media narrative. And yes, that took place in large measure because of the WikiLeaks publications of the Podesta emails. But those email leaks have been attributed (by Julian Assange and other knowledgeable persons) to disgruntled Democrat persons. Thus, the entire premise of the contention that Russia "interfered" with the USA election is a MSM-driven fabrication aimed at helping Democrats recapture a media-driven framing of the materiality of what's what. That narrative broke down in 2016 via a combination of Red State voters flooding independently to social media, the effectiveness of Trump's tweets and rally(s) and also, the WikiLeaks revelations. And these points being true, it's not honest to say that Russia "interfered" with the election. 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 13:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be mention of the recklessness of the DNC and Hillary Clinton that contributed to the hack taking place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.211.52 ( talk) 14:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
So if someone breaks into your house but does not do anything that is not interference with your doors? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
With this edit [48] - is Newsmax.com a reliable source ?
Not seeing this info picked up by other sources ?
Can this be removed ? Sagecandor ( talk) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The Newsmax article was written by Ed Klein. Note that Klein is a columnist not a reporter for Newsmax hence it fails reliable sources. Some editors have argued that this type of column is an exception because it is a "news column," not an "opinion column." Note too that although it is not clear at first, Klein uses the expression "according to sources." If we accept it as a reliable source then we would have to be clear about that. TFD ( talk) 01:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Since no evidence was provided for this particular conspiracy theory ? I also note that the article is highly biased towards one side here, without any criticism of lack of evidence to claims by supporters of this theory in the article.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@ MrX, Sagecandor, and N-HH: The CIA has many tasks, among them the overthrow of many governments in the last 65 years, and the propagation of disinformation to cover up these actions (as many CIA agents have later testified). The CIA is not a news organization or an encyclopedia, it's a clandestine intelligence service, and that's how we should approach it when noting any public statements it produces.
Furthermore, the existence or lack of existence of a neutral body to adjudicate allegations of election tampering from Russia cannot lead us to proceed from the wildly speculative assumption that any accusation should be considered true unless proven otherwise. - Darouet ( talk) 00:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Sagecandor and MrX: The title of this article and your comments here all strongly imply these allegations are not merely allegations, but that Russia has interfered in the U.S. election, and we need to relate that fact. This is not known as a fact. By insisting on the current title, "Russian influence," you are seriously misleading readers. There has been enough discussion about this that it's not longer appropriate to assume you don't know the implications of the title of the article. - Darouet ( talk) 01:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be more precise to say 'campaign' rather than 'election'. The latter, even if it can be an umbrella for anything, necessarily evokes the actual casting and counting of votes, and given that this article is NOT about the claims of voting machine hacking that were made earlier, it would be logical to do everything possible to clear that up. 79.169.98.40 ( talk) 22:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Russian interference with the 2016 election cycle in the United States" ... or to include the impact of quasi-NGOs such as WikiLeaks, and propaganda both covert and open in the form of endorsing candidates and such, the topic-area could be broadened to " International influences on the 2016 election cycle in the United States" using almost the same model as International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 (except that the reactions-article is about post-election stuff only whereas the use of '2016 election cycle' also permits talking about campaigns and pre-campaign influences). 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 03:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's some background information on Ken Dilanian's—and Scott Shane's—past history of collaboration with the CIA. It's probably no coincidence that Dilanian helped break the news of Putin's alleged involvement for NBC—just as it's no coincidence that the CIA first leaked this story to its favorite newspaper (The Washington Post). TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Close request from blocked user 11Eternity11 ( talk · contribs) in favor of newer request below started on 21 December 2016. Sagecandor ( talk) 18:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign – The title of this article says "interference" in the US "election". The word "election" implies that Russia interfered with the voting process, as "election" means: "the selection of a person or persons for office by vote." [1] The article, however, doesn't mention Russia interfering with the voting process, but releasing private DNC emails and promoting propaganda. In order to ensure clarity of title, I suggest the page be moved to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign" to reflect that the interference occurred with the campaigning (generating opinions, etc.) and not the voting process itself. 11Eternity11 ( talk) 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC) References Why is the current title even what it is right now? It was moved by Sagecandor without any discussion I can find, and no move request. It's also a WP:POVTITLE because declares Russia's guilt, which has been stated by US officials and agencies, but is not known. Concision is the worst excuse for falsehood I've ever seen someone make for an article title. - Darouet ( talk) 05:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I've changed it to "alleged," to remove the most glaring problem facing the article at present. - Darouet ( talk) 05:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments
|
Close request from blocked user 11Eternity11 ( talk · contribs) in favor of newer request below started on 21 December 2016.
Please see Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_21_December_2016. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)