![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
On what basis is User:Volunteer Marek's addition of "McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll" removed? Whether it really is a joke is questionable, because Ryan treated it as serious. It really makes no difference, even if it were a joke, because it's reliably sourced, extremely notable, widely covered, and should be restored. (It's a bombshell revelation which appears to show Ryan engaging in both obstruction of justice and conspiracy. That's pretty serious.)
As the source said, Putin is known to financially support the campaigns and personal pockets of right wing populists like Trump. (Trump is not known to ever refuse money, especially laundered money from Russian mobsters, as well as money from Russian business interests and Russian banks. There was a long period where he was essentially bankrupt and no American banks would loan him money, and most of his funds came from the named Russian sources.)
So, just document what happened. That's our obligation. Censorship of such a notable event is a serious violation of NPOV. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 07:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The policy governing this matter is WP:TRIVIA. It's an editorial call based on how RS treat a matter. Our opinions are not a factor in how we make that call. If a matter which we might personally think is trivial is the subject of deeper discussion in a major RS (as in this case), or is covered by multiple RS (also this case), then the sources are not treating it as trivia, so our personal opinion doesn't matter. We must mention it. The current content may need some revision, but it should be included. Its significance is shown in the WaPo article:
The next step is to tweak it and return it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
We must mention it.No, there is no policy that says Wikipedia must mention everything that makes the front page of the Washington Post. We are building an encyclopedia, not a political gazette. Look up the ten-year test. — JFG talk 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Well I am not sure it is quite that clear cut. So lets make it easy. We can discus the details once we are sure we should even include it. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
It's covered in multiple RS in a serious manner, and not treated at all as trivia. To ignore it is a violation of NPOV. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
If you think a user has breached the rules, report then. Please do not discus it here as it is irrelevant.
Slatersteven (
talk)
16:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, what's sad is your inability to let it go and this obsessive need to attack me directly. Let it goooooo. Let it goooooo. Your comments never bothered me anyway. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
And "what trash reporting" is not a policy based !vote. So it can be safely discounted and ignored in closing this poll. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The Trump/Russia investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation:
BullRangifer ( talk) 04:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The article appears to completely overlook the occurrences of voter registration hacking, as covered by a number of sources [5] [6] [7] [8] and more. While the message from on high has been something to the effect of "only registration was hacked, not the actual vote" I believe this to be a fallacy and its potential impact on the election to be severely understated. The way voter eligibility works in most places across the country, if your registration is not valid well ahead of the election date, you will not be able to vote in that election. Merely by tampering with voter registration at a convenient time (for example, changing an absentee voter's registered address right before ballots are mailed) it is possible to prevent people from voting, and as these databases contain information such as ethnicity and party affiliation, it is possible to target specific demographics and effect a campaign of voter suppression. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 07:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's my draft copy - likely can be cleaned up:
As early as June 2016, the FBI sent a warning to states about "bad actors" probing state-elections systems to seek vulnerabilities. [1] In September 2016, FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI was "looking 'very, very hard' at Russian hackers who may try to disrupt the U.S. election" and that federal investigators had detected hacked-related activities in state voter-registration databases, [2] which independent assessments determined were "extremely vulnerable to hacking." [3] Comey stated: "There have been a variety of scanning activities which is a preamble for potential intrusion activities as well as some attempted intrusions at voter database registrations beyond those we knew about in July and August." [1] He told Congress that the Bureau was looking into "just what mischief is Russia up to in connection with our election." [4] This statement echoed a comment by a U.S. intelligence official the previous month, who told NBC News that "there is serious concern" about Russian government-directed interference in the U.S. presidential election. [3] Earlier, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper attributed Russian hacking attempts to Vladimir Putin, stating that he was "'paranoid' about the potential for revolutions in Russia,'and of course they see a U.S. conspiracy behind every bush, and ascribe far more impact than we're actually guilty of.'" [4] In September 2016, U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials and the National Association of Secretaries of State reported that hackers had penetrated, or sought to penetrate, the voter-registration systems in more than 20 states over the previous few months. [2] Federal investigators attributed these attempts to Russian government-sponsored hackers, [1] and specifically to Russian intelligence agencies. [3] Four of the intrusions into voter registration databases were successful, including intrusions into the Illinois and Arizona databases. [4] Although the hackers did not appear to change or manipulate data, [2] [1] Illinois officials reported that information on up to 200,000 registered voters was stolen. [3] The FBI and DHS increased their election-security coordination efforts with state officials as a result. [1] [2] In August 2016, the FBI issued a nationwide "flash alert" warning state election officials about hacking attempts. [3] Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reported that 18 states had requested voting-system security assistance from DHS. [1] The department also offered "more comprehensive, on-site risk and vulnerability" assessments to the states, but just four states expressed interest, as the election was rapidly approaching. [2] The reports of the database intrusions prompted alarm from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, who wrote to the FBI: "The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War." [4]
References
Tagging MrX, Ham Pastrami, SPECIFICO - don't know if this approximates what you had in mind. -- Neutrality talk 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think we should expand the logical scope of this article to something like this:
We can't document collusion yet, but there is abundant evidence in RS of a very close relationship between the Trump administration, including Trump, and Russian officials of various types, including the meeting in the Oval Office, a relationship which is friendlier than between Trump and Americans of all stripes. We need to be able to include material related to the aftermath. What think ye? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Per the section below, I think at some point we'll get an article on the investigation itself and that will effectively accomplish what you propose. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a good case to split the article now. I have created a draft here: Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, please take a look. This article would then focus solely on the Russian interference topic, basically keeping everything that I haven't moved into the draft. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 10:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Investigation by Special Counsel
Maybe this could also become its own article? Sagecandor ( talk) 19:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
A brief mention for now, then a split when more info comes out. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
A new article popped up related to Russian interference. Looks like it could use a substantial amount of help Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election if anyone is interested. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The very first sentence of this article, as well as the title and subsequent content, make a claim that seems to be sourced from media sources rather than the direct source: the actual Intelligence report. The actual report cited by those media sources and this article does not say that that Russia "interfered in" the elections. Shouldn't the title and lead sentence reflect what the actual report said (ie "influence campaign"), instead of what media sources said? The "interfered in" claim should be attributed only to media sources, not a report that makes no such claim. Intelligent readers understand the difference between "interference" and "influence", as well as the difference between "election" and "campaign", even if many journalists don't (or pretend not to). Blue Eyes Cryin ( talk) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.”VM cited two articles in which Reuters is "quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials." It gets tiresome to go over this again and again. Volunteer Marek and MjolnirPants, can't you just admit at this point that what Darouet said about BBC and Reuters was accurate? VM in particular likes to quote WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so they should understand my frustration here. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 20:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
So in other words, Darouet said they always use the word "alleged" and VM proved that they didn't. Not that it would even matter, because one or two large media groups taking an editorial policy to prefer a certain phrasing doesn't change how they actually treat the subject, a discussion you and I have had numerous times over the past six months or so, and which I've observed you to have with numerous other editors over that time, as well. This issue was settled quite some time ago. The fact that there are a small handful of editors who continue to push this POV despite their arguments having been brought up and shot down countless times is evidence of nothing but that old, discredited canard about insanity. I suppose that might be of particular interest to you two, because it shows that a claim which is obviously false can still contain quite a bit of truth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials”(emphasis added). Read the bolded part of the quote. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officialsblatantly contradict your false paraphrase,
they always use the word "alleged". - Darouet ( talk) 21:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain En savoir plus sur, which is to say American intelligence imputed to the Russians, which is what this article says. It says that American intelligence announced the Russians hacked the Democrats; but it has yet to be tied to the Trump team. [12]
The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.. It doesn’t say alleged. Objective3000 ( talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials”.
“they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials”(emphasis added).
"piratages informatiques ciblant les démocrates, imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain"(my translation: "hacks targeted at the Democrats, attributed to Russia by American intelligence services"). Le Monde very clearly attributes the view that Russia is responsible for the hacks to US intelligence, which is in line with what BBC and Reuters do. Le Monde doesn't take a stance on whether or not this attribution is correct. This is what I've found, in general, reading Le Monde.
"The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election."That's what the Senate Judiciary subcommittee is investigating. I don't see any statement by AP that Russia interfered in the election. I just see a description of the subject of the investigation.
"A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters"(emphasis added). This is entirely in line with what Darouet said above about Reuters and BBC.
"Numerous sources have already been given of U.S. RS that do not use alleged."The sources that do not use "alleged" are mostly quoting from US intelligence officials. When a newspaper quotes someone, it doesn't mean that the newspapers is endorsing that person's views. A major problem is that many editors here are taking such examples (where a newspaper says, "US intelligence officials say that ...") as evidence that newspapers treat "Russian interference" as a fact.
Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment for Moscow
President Trump’s decision to fire James Comey as FBI director was the latest in a series of destabilizing jolts to core institutions of the U.S. government, actions that, although driven by the president, have in some ways amplified the effect Russia sought to achieve with its effort to undermine the 2016 presidential race. And while the Kremlin may have hoped for sanctions relief from the Trump administration, the tumult in the United States is a welcome alternative.
SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
And come on, even Trump's man Tillerson says they did it, without any 'alleged' in there [16]. I'm pretty sure even Trump agreed that they did it (I think the source for that is already in the article). The only question is how and why and who was involved. This is really a pointless discussion at this point. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This is really a pointless discussion at this point.I agree. I would like to point out that the onus for ceasing this endless argument lies on all editors involved, not just those pushing the minority POV. All of us should stop discussing this. I'm aware that the minority view is unlikely to heed my advice, but if the majority view does listen to me, the result will be the same. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion here [17] that NeilN consider whether reinstating the "no reinsertion without consensus" provision, which remains in place on most other ARBAP2 pages, would relieve us all of the edit-warring and the need to reply to repetitive minority arguments to change consensus. As it stands, when editors don't reply to each attempt to change consensus, silence is claimed to be assent and edit-warring ensues. The reinstatement of that provision would obviate these repetitive and needless rehash pile-ups. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@ MjolnirPants: Calling one core constituency the "consensus" is an exaggeration. The two constituencies are similar in size, with the "represent only the views of US intelligence" constituency being a majority, but by no means an overwhelming one. The "treat the issue with the same caution as BBC, Reuters, and most other major news outlets" constituency is a very significant minority here. "Consensus" suggests something more than a 60%/40% split, which looks to be approximately what we have. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"With enough reliable sources, you will be able to convince enough editors to change the current consensus."Sadly, this hasn't been the case. Above, Darouet went through BBC and Reuters reporting and showed quite clearly what their editorial stance is. That was brushed off (which was a great disrespect, in my opinion, since no one else on this talk page has done that much work to go through the source material). I went through a random assortment of press coverage of the issue a few months ago ( here), but that also had no effect. Instead, I was accused of cherry-picking (I actually chose the first Google hits for the search phrase "Russian interference in us election"). That's why I'm baffled that every time this issue comes up, a number of editors show up and say things like, "We've already shown abundant RS that treat Russian interference as a fact." Looking through the archives of the talk page, the opposite is actually the case. The majority of the source work - seeing whether sources treat Russian interference as fact - has actually been done by the "constituency" that wants to present a range of views in the article. The other constituency has consistently blown off these discussions of reliable sources. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.”I don't know why, but you (and a few others) constantly ignore the bolded part of that sentence. Can you reply to the bolded part of the sentence? Do you agree that when a newspaper quotes or paraphrases someone, the newspaper isn't necessarily implying that that person is correct? If you agree, I don't see how you can use the absence of "alleged" in the articles you cited as evidence that Le Monde, Reuters, etc. treat "Russian interference" as something other than an allegation. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I just migrated these reports, please add them to the article if / where appropriate.
Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Two additions should be added to the Julian Assange Section. Neutral information. First, is to add to his claim about how a 14 ye3ar old could hack podesta's email. It should be noted that podesta's password for one of his computer was "username: jpodesta; password: p@assword" and Assange claims his password was literally "password". I've also heard it was "12345password".
Second, is to add his claim that Seth Rich was one of his sources. The information related to his unsolved murder, the active investigation by the local police, and the non-investigation on the federal level, are all relevant. It should be written in a way that doesn't have a bias towards any conspiracy theory, but is very relevant information given Julian Assange's claim & the significant impact of that claim. Anyone could have murdered Seth Rich. It could have been a random robbery (although nothing was stolen - which should be mentioned), it could have been a US group, or it could have been the Russias. All relevant, but speculation should NOT be mentioned. Just the information about the murder & current investigation & statements by Julian Assange.
Third, It should also be noted that Julian Assange has a track record of substantiated evidence (unless you can prove otherwise; using evidence to disprove WikiLeaks claims). Meanwhile, websites like the Washington Post have significantly worse track records when it comes to the evidence validating/invalidating their claims. This is very important. It means nothing, but is relevant to the truth because it is evidence-based reliability. Using the Scientific Method, you can quantify both sources. If evidence has ever concluded to prove or disprove a claim, that actually matters. All of it should be written in an unbiased way though - the evidence is what matters NOT opinion. Unsubstantiated claims by Assange should be written as a "claim", not a "conclusion". Although the FBI "concluded" rather than "Claimed", despite the lack of public evidence. So this article already has a bias in favor of the US government, which IMO should be corrected as not all of us are Americans.
edit: Actually, I think it would be better to simply mention Julian Assange's statement that Seth Rich was his source, he was murdered, and then simply link to the relevant Wikipedia article. No reason to add anything to that section outside that brief sentence & single link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:f040:34:7db9:20b3:a5ff:becd ( talk • contribs)
These article are significant. The Guardian is an excellent RS, and they contain significant details.
Here's something I noticed:
The linked article, which Clapper "confirmed" as "true" and having "quite sensitive" "specifics", is important too:
References
BullRangifer ( talk) 03:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
NPOV is all about how editors must not alter biased sources and content. See my essay which goes in depth on this subject: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content.
If we really keep context in mind, Clapper MUST be dishonest at times, especially when dealing with Trump. That's his job as an investigator. He has to keep his cards close to his body so he doesn't compromise the investigation. IOW, he is likely understating things. Today, when Clapper said there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, he's probably sitting with several strong pieces of evidence proving it, but is just stringing Trump along and giving him more rope to hang himself. Some day we'll find out what's on those alarming taped conversations between Trump's people and the Russians which caused foreign intelligence agencies to notify our intelligence agencies. It must have been serious. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Should be added. Both refused to do it. Casprings ( talk) 22:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed by CNN: Trump asked DNI, NSA to deny evidence of Russia collusion http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/index.html Casprings ( talk) 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
NBC News Confirms: Trump Asked Top Intel Officials To Push Back Publicly on Russia Probe http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-asked-top-intel-officials-push-back-publicly-russia-probe-n763336 Casprings ( talk) 01:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Whilst I do not think we should add every bit of tittle tattle I think this is very relevant, even if it is just an example of the total lack of trust Donny now suffers from. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
In accordance with his comments here, Casprings added several sentences to the article lede. I reverted them, stating that some of the wording was problematic and the information did not belong in the lede. Casprings and I then discussed it at my talk page,
here, and reached consensus that a modified version could go in the article text. We did not discuss where in the article the material should go. Obviously it should be somewhere in the "2017 developments" section. I would suggest the "Comey memos" subsection be renamed with a more general title, such as "White House attempts to influence the investigation" (too suggestive) or "White House contacts with law enforcement agencies". I think the existing material in the article about Comey's memos could be condensed into a single, better organized paragraph, and then the following material added:
References
Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Per the RS in the previous section right above, we can use Investigation of suspected cover-up. This is the third phase of the existing investigations and is covered by much of Comey's, FBI's and CIA's current activities. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
In preparation for restoring the content, and
Casprings, you write well, so you're welcome to perform the honors
, please keep in mind that content in the body has primacy over content in the lead. Add to the body, and then add a short summary to the lead. There shouldn't be any content or references in the lead which are not first used in the body (except certain types of minor facts). You can read more on the subject here:
WP:CREATELEAD.
Also incorporate the references and their content found above in the previous section. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with "coverup". That term is not being used in connection with these White House actions; it sounds more like WP:SYNTH. Again, let's not get ahead of the reporting. Earlier I objected to "White House attempts to influence the investigation" but maybe that would be the best title for what we have right now. -- MelanieN ( talk) 10:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks MelanieN, that's a very good start, but I have some questions or suggestions.
"In his call with Rogers, Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion, according to officials briefed on the exchange. [emphasis added]"
"The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation. [emphasis added]"
"The former official told NBC News that Coats and Rogers did not believe they were being asked to do something illegal. It was more of a public relations request, they believed, according to the official. 'I don't think [Trump] ever asked somebody to say something that they didn't believe was true', the former official said. [emphasis added]"
So did Trump make a different request to Rogers to Coats or were they both truthful and do we need to note this discrepancy?
According to NBC News, one of them wrote a memo because the request was "extraordinary", and they exchanged notes, but neither of them was not "sufficiently concerned that they reported it"
. We should add something about this.
I take issue with the last sentence ("In addition ...
) – Flynn investigation is not related to the FBI's probe of alleged Russian election interference. If the sentence is to be included, it should mention the Flynn investigation, and the content should be moved somewhere else, separate from content that is directly related to Russia investigation.
Section title that includes "cover-up" would totally improper because it's not based on sources.
Politrukki (
talk)
11:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
My proposed wording does not say or imply that the White House request was asking them to lie.I saw that, and I thank you for being careful. "False" was used in the edit you reverted and in the discussion on your talk page (also, as you may have noticed, someone added "false statements" to Trump's bio and I deleted "false"). But I also wanted to highlight that I think the WaPo piece is very difficult to parse. Again, WaPo says:
"Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion [emphasis added]". That's the biggest "if" I've seen in a long time. That's WaPo saying in its editorial voice that Rogers was asked to tell the truth (no, that would not make the request any less idiotic, in my opinion). We don't know what kind of request Trump supposedly made to Coats because WaPo doesn't say it – either because they don't know or because they refuse to tell – but they do call the appeals "similar". Here's what I propose:
After Comey revealed in March that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump reportedly asked Director of National Security admiral Michael S. Rogers to speak out publicly if he had not seen evidence of collusion. He also made a similar request to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats. [1] Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate, though not illegal, and did not make the requested statement. The two exchanged notes about the incident, and Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request. [2] [3]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
but also says"The documentation of Mr. Trump's request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia. ... Part of the Flynn investigation is centered on his financial links to Russia and Turkey.
My interpretation of all this is that Flynn could be investigated for things that are related to Russia but unrelated to collusion. The cited WaPo piece does not even hint what Flynn is being investigated for. The immunity offer is a moot point because the request was rejected both in House and Senate Intelligence committees and not all experts even agree that Flynn's request was serious:In testimony to the Senate last week, Mr. McCabe said, "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date." Mr. McCabe was referring to the broad investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The investigation into Mr. Flynn is separate.
"Some experts cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions about Mr. Flynn's request for immunity."That being said, you don't have refute me on this because I approve your edit. I'm just going to make one or three bold edits that add content.
MelanieN, it concerns me that you would make an accusation of SYNTH, when I have repeatedly pointed to the section above, where there are several RS which use the term "cover-up". Use of that word is indeed based on RS. It is the third phase of the ongoing investigation. The suggestion is also worded neutrally (Suspected cover-up). That is the most accurate and short description, and it's used by RS, including Elijah Cummings:
(Pinging Casprings & Politrukki) -- BullRangifer ( talk) 14:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have merged this wording with the Comey memo material, and have put it in the article in place of the Comey memo subsection, in a section titled "White House attempts to influence the investigation." We had not really reached a consensus on the section title but I felt there was sufficient consensus to add the material, leaving room for more discussion on the title. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to call attention to a couple of comments which are buried in the middle of a discussion above:
From Politrukki: And oh, for the love of muffins, people, please stop adding new material to the lead unless it's something crucial!
From me: I certainly agree with you that people need to stop adding the latest headline to the lede. (Today's example: all the edit warring over Feinstein's comment.) If something is new and relevant, put it in the article text, not the lede. The lede is only for summarizing the most important points from the text.
Bottom line: when you have new, sourced material that is relevant to this article, please put it in the appropriate section of article text, with references. Only after it is determined to be an essential part of the overall story should it be added to the lede as well. -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Lordy this is so freaking annoying. Why do people add shit straight into the intro that is not first in the body ? So stupid. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials. I also spent some time reading other wiki articles on this topic. Basically, despite longstanding objections from dozens of editors here, a cautious editorial policy (something that the BBC has somehow managed) is thrown to the wind. - Darouet ( talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The BBC (News, Global News, Newsday, Newshour, Business Matters, Radio 4) routinely describes “alleged interference” or “possible hacking.” This appears to have been their policy in print and voice since the story broke, and it remains true today:
Reuters appears to do the same thing:
(I have found one example to the contrary, from 11 April):
Nobody here has ever articulated why (or how we'd know) that the BBC or Reuters are wrong to be cautious. Should we be cautious? Or should Wikipedia lead the charge?
I don't think our article at present accurately conveys what is known and thought, by reliable sources, about these allegations around the world.
For instance the French article on this topic is titled, “Accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.” The Spanish article has the same title, “Accusations…” and the German article is titled “2016 hacking affair between Russia and the US.” The French article contains an 8-part section titled “Skepticism of the hypothesis of Russian interference,”
These sections do what one expect given the circumstances of the allegations: cite journalists, cybersecurity experts, and political figures who are skeptical, and sometimes provide alternative explanations for the allegations. Among those cited:
Why should we care? Because no one has come forward with actual evidence of the alleged hacking by Russia. That's why. 8675309 ( talk) 20:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
By contrast, our article baldly declares the allegations are true (title), dedicates the beginning of the intro to a long quote directly from American intelligence agencies, and mostly quotes cybersecurity experts or former intelligence officials who believe the government has been too weak against Russia (except for instance in the “Joint Analysis Report” section).
We don't need to follow what the French Wikipedia does. But we need to consider how we've gotten to the point where we take an aggressive editorial line that this event really did occur (which it might have), when major news outlets like Reuters and the BBC don't. - Darouet ( talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined."That's exactly the case here. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 06:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't an RFC on this subject closed today? Consensus is pretty clear and this seems like a dead horse. If you disagree, I would suggest challenging the RFC's close. Casprings ( talk) 22:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups."Notice that "alleged" is in the voice of the BBC. Before commenting, please read through the quotes more carefully. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how your post addresses this at all.Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it really seems like the problem isn't on my end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
"Russia succeeded in its goals of sowing discord in U.S. politics by meddling in the 2016 presidential election, which will likely inspire similar future efforts, two top former U.S. voices on intelligence said on Tuesday."Reuters isn't claiming that the claims of those officials are correct. Your second source does the exact same thing:
"Congressional committees began investigating after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered hacking of Democratic political groups to try to sway the election toward Trump."Darouet could have cited those articles as well, and they would equally have bolstered the case that Reuters always treats "Russian interference" as an allegation (whether by attributing the claim or by explicitly saying "alleged"). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 04:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur. As a general rule we should always lean toward being careful regarding how we describe unproven allegations. In this case the number of sources describing the charges as alleged, or even openly questioning the lack of evidence backing the accusations, is overwhelming. This is not even a remotely close call. Adlerschloß ( talk) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the RfC has properly been installed by Casprings. The wording is "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."
The RfC determined that "alleged" is not the proper word. "Concluded" is the proper word.
Why a "reboot"? Because the discussion is off-track because it is about what actually happened, not about the belief of "The United States government's intelligence agencies." One can have one's doubts about whether Russia was involved or not, but there can be no doubt that "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded..." THEY are not in doubt. We write their conclusion, not what someone thinks actually happened. Those are two different things.
This whole thread is way off track. This should end the discussion. Rehashing the RfC is not an option at this point. Such a rehashing is disruption. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I have not followed the discussion or the RFC, but I've just given it a quick read. I would strongly encourage you to move this article to Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, because that's what it is. Moreover, the lede uses the word "stated" several times, when it should be "hypothesized." Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 03:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
How is it that we can claim Russia did something without actual evidence? Is it possible? Sure. Has Russia been proven to be involved? No. Why are we acting like this happened? 8675309 ( talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
At some point some mention of the new Aaron Nevins revelations should be added. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/anthony-nevins-roger-stone-stolen-democratic-voter-analyses SecretName101 ( talk) 23:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Should be added to his section and someone this close to POTUS is a big deal. Casprings ( talk) 22:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
NBC Confirming: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jared-kushner-now-under-fbi-scrutiny-russia-probe-say-officials-n764826?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma Casprings ( talk) 22:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
CNN: FBI Russia investigation looking at Kushner role http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/fbi-russia-investigation-jared-kushner/index.html Casprings ( talk) 00:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The Washington Post: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html 23:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-kushner-exclusive-idUSKBN18N018
Should be in article. Casprings ( talk) 01:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
NYT confirms article: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC Casprings ( talk) 02:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
In a CNN interview three weeks ago, Diane Feinstein's responded "Not at this time" when asked
This information is out of date (see, for example, this), and it's not particularly significant enough to merit inclusion in this article. Based on what is known today, it represents a minority viewpoint that has largely been promulgated by questionable sources like Breitbart and The Washington Times. I think this material should remain out of the article.- Mr X 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
"The specific issue is not "inappropriate contact", it's collusion"Well, collusion falls under inappropriate contact. It's true that at this point there is no clear answers to what happened, but within the article both points of view about possible collusion are already presented. Feinstein's comment doesn't make anything any clearer. It's noise that will be forgotten once the investigation starts yielding results.- Mr X 15:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
If the article included lots of quotes from people who think there IS evidence of collusion, then it would be appropriate to include Feinstein saying that she has not yet seen any. But as I look at the article, or at least the section on Senate committees where that was added, I don't find any quotes from anyone stating that there IS evidence of collusion. Basically she is just saying exactly what everyone else is saying: "We just don't know yet." She just said it in a way that conservative media chose to highlight. For that reason I don't see any reason to include her comments in the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
"those investigations have turned up no such evidence.". She said:
Very very very obviously it should be included. … Feinstein ought to be in the lead sentence, and you want to wipe her out of the article. Give me a break.-- --Anythingyouwant) to put in a statement by a third person saying she hasn't (yet) seen such evidence? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Here are excerpts from the lead suggesting collusion between Trump and Russia during the campaign:
“ | Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015....Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner and advisers Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone....On March 20, 2017, FBI director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI had been conducting a counter-intelligence investigation about Russian interference since July 2016, including possible coordination between associates of Trump and Russia.... | ” |
In contrast, there is not one word in the lead saying that no evidence of collusion has been found to date. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with MelanieN not to include it, that assessment is the best one in this section so far [26]. Sagecandor ( talk) 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Cluttering everywhere is obviously suboptimal. It is being discussed here, robustly. Not immediately obvious that it needs to be discussed elsewhere, but if someone judges that it needs more involvement, one option is an RfC, another is to determine the central issue and decide if there is a good, relevant noticeboard. It seems to me to be an issue of neutrality, and only involves BLP in a way that would allow almost anything to qualify. If this was a low-traffic page, I'd understand the need to take it elsewhere.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it is better just to state that Feinstein said she had not seen any evidence. Not important how she phrased it, who was asking the question, where she was, what she was wearing, the temperature outside, etc. TFD ( talk) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
An IP user has inserted a link to this article on Template:Conspiracy theories. I have removed it — given that the reliable sources do not describe the Russia affair as a "conspiracy theory" — but I wanted to flag the issue on this page. If you can, please add the template to your watchlist - more eyeballs always appreciated. Neutrality talk 02:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election#RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him?. -
Mr
X
14:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
[28]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
NYT independtly confirms: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC
We should go ahead and add it. Two very high quality WP:RSes. Casprings ( talk) 02:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Rather than talk about this (or anything else) in the abstract, I find it almost always more productive for someone to put suggested language on the table (either at talk or through an appropriate edit). So if someone has a suggested draft? Neutrality talk 02:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Disagree with this summary added to the lede [30].
This article is not just about the FBI investigation.
It is about the wider topic itself.
Though there could be another separate article about the FBI investigation only, and or the Special counsel. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Today's changes to the lead section by Enthusiast01 [31] and MelanieN [32] have redefined the scope of this article as covering the investigations about Russian election interference and suspected Trump campaign misdeeds. In prior discussions, the scope had been defined as covering Russian meddling activities broadly construed, and not just the investigations about them. More recently, as the article grew to include various allegations about the Trump entourage, I suggested a split between the Russian election interference here and the Trump–Russia collusion investigations elsewhere (see draft), but this proposal was rebuked. Now, if the scope is redefined as all-inclusive of various investigations into Trumpian affairs beyond Russian election interference, then the title is grossly inappropriate. What can we do? I see three logical options:
Thoughts? — JFG talk 22:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
"Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, also called the Russia investigation, refers to investigations by agencies..."is poorly-worded and semantically incorrect. Interference is not a synonym for investigation. The edit also reduced the scope of the interference from U.S. election to Presidential elections, which has previously been discussed (with sources) on this page. Now I'm off to fix the grammatical error left by another user earlier today.- Mr X 23:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
"several off-topic or loosely related sections should then be removed". What do you consider to be off-topic or loosely related?- Mr X 23:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Should this article have major non-related events? It seems like that would provide some context when reading a timeline. For example a SC justice being sworn in, health care, or a new war. I just think it would help the timeline because you would understand the other ongoimg Casprings ( talk) 02:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I just realized I posted this on the wrong article. Meant for the timeline related article. Casprings ( talk) 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)|
I think the whole Disclosure of classified information to Russia section should be deleted as it does not go to Russian interference nor the investigation of officials. Enthusiast01 ( talk) 01:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The Comey related stuff definitely belongs in there. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
NO, it is not really related. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree the disclosure of classified information is irrelevant to this subject. I suggest that we transfer this sentence to the Comey paragraph - In a
May 10 private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak, Trump told Russian officials that firing the F.B.I. director, James Comey, had relieved "great pressure" on him. He stated, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," adding "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."
[1]
- and delete the rest of the section.
MelanieN (
talk)
19:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
See "House Democrats fire two IT staffers amid criminal investigation" Heather Caygle, Politico): "Alvi, Awan and three other House aides, including Abid Awan and Jamal Awan, relatives of Imran Awan, and Rao Abbas, are all linked to the criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Capitol Police. The five current and former House staffers are accused of stealing equipment from members’ offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the probe." TFD ( talk) 21:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I've partially, but not fully, restored some content deleted by JFG (with the edit summary "Remove a bunch of off-topic asides and redundant opinions"), although I have edited the text of some to be clearer and more precise. I find much of the material at issue to be very much on topic and not redundant. Going in order:
After a few days of abundant discussion of this issue on WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince, there is an even split between editors who consider this story a BLP violation and editors who don't. Therefore we should err on the side of caution and remove the material until such time that it gets corroborated by independent reporting or new facts. — JFG talk 07:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
"especially by involved or self-interested parties."What do you mean by that? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The extensive discussion at BLP/N resulted in consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok. Consequently, here's my suggestion, shortening the current section:
On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian envoy in the Seychelles, allegedly to "establish a back-channel line of communication" between Trump and Putin. [1] The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates in order to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. Prince is the brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and was a major donor to Trump's election campaign. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition." [1]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
It's still longer than "a line or two" in order to fairly represent the subject matter. Support, Oppose, Amend? — JFG talk 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Mr. X here This seems well sourced and relevant to the article. Did you post something on this page's talk page concerning the discussion at BLP/N? Other editors should have been able to talk part in the discussion. Casprings ( talk) 01:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Neutrality: You did say in the original discussion that you would possibly approve a trimmed version. Would you be satisfied with my paragraph above summarizing the Washington Post , followed by the last paragraph in the current prose, summarizing the NBC News report about what intelligence officials added? Same question to MrX. — JFG talk 08:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that in January, Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met with an unidentified Russian associate of Vladimir Putin, in the Seychelles. According to U.S., European, and Arab officials, the meeting was arranged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to establish a back-channel link between Trump and Putin. The UAE and Trump's associates reportedly tried to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. The FBI is investigating the Seychelles meeting which took place after previous meetings in New York between Trump's associates and officials from Russia and the Emirates, at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community. Prince was a major contributor to Trump's election campaign, and appears to have close ties to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. The Trump administration denied knowledge of the meeting and said that Prince was not involved in the Trump campaign. [1]
Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia. [2]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
"The FBI, however, refused to comment.", which I added, but not DeVos. Politrukki ( talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian associate of Putin in the Seychelles. [1] The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates to establish a back channel between Trump and Putin and to convince Russia to distance itself from Iran. U.S. officials said the FBI was investigating the meeting as part of their inquiry into election interference and Trump–Russia relations. Prince was a major donor to Trump's election campaign and has been linked to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition." [1]
Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia. [2]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
MrX's version per SPECIFICO. Casprings ( talk) 11:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
MrX + DeVos, then. SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion on BLP/N, with input from a number of editors who aren't normally involved on this page. It looked at the end of the discussion like the result was to include something about Erik Prince in this article, but to keep it short, with clear attribution of the various claims. The latest text proposed above is far too long, in my opinion. I don't see how a news story that blew over pretty quickly could possibly merit such a detailed treatment here. The initial proposal by JFG looks best.
The contradiction between a number of editors' stances on the Erik Prince material and the Joint Analysis Report section is baffling to me. The JAR is central to this story, since it's the one of the most comprehensive reports the US government has released on the alleged Russian interference so far. But the very same editors who are arguing vociferously that our description of the JAR (particularly the reaction of outside experts to it) must be curtailed are arguing here that we must cover a relative sideshow (that didn't even occur before the election, and therefore has questionable relation to the subject of this article) in great detail. The contradiction between these two stances is just confusing. I'm trying to formulate a coherent theory in my head that reconciles these two seemingly opposite stances, but the only theory I can come up with has to do with the political implications of the different pieces of content, not with any Wikipedia policy. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
So here we are, after a month of discussion here and at BLPN, instead of turning this story into a "brief mention" as agreed, the latest proposals still argue to keep most of the contents and innuendo in a rather lengthy paragraph. Meanwhile, this "mysterious" meeting did not get any more press coverage, nothing seems to have come out of the reported discussions, and "back-channel" stories are now focusing on other places and other people. One still wonders why Trump would need to open all those back channels to Putin if they were long-time BFFs colluding to steal the election. But as long as it's printed in a reliable source, it seems the most tenuous stories must be included in the encyclopedia these days… At least we should be relieved that this one didn't spawn its own article. Any volunteers to finally cut the wording on this particular "spy-novel-of-the-day"? — JFG talk 13:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is getting big.
Time to form sub articles and then to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE back here? Sagecandor ( talk) 16:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The section " Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials" is a laundry list of detective clues, which kind of begs to be forked into its own article. Many of the reported contacts are indeed related to Russia but unrelated to the election interference. — JFG talk 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Public-opinion polls
Way too big.
Can someone maybe trim this down, and or make it into a table format ? Sagecandor ( talk) 19:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Commentary and reactions
Whole entire section should be spun out, and or just judiciously trimmed way way down.
We are losing focus.
Time to see the forest for the trees.
Article should focus on the facts, events, developments, and not become over bloated with "Commentary" and "Reactions" that are not official developments and facts. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
User:MrX: I don't believe it is "undue" to add a small subsection about Russian reactions. If it were five long paragraphs, it would be undue. I added two lines based on an article from the Financial Times, which were overdue. We need to include all relevant views. We are not an advertising website for the USIC; we are an encyclopedia. I'd like you to remove the "undue" tag and hopefully let other editors add a few more Russian reactions. Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The whole entire section Commentary and reactions is too big. It could either be spun off, and or judiciously trimmed down. Way too big. Article should stick to just the facts and events and developments. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:19, 30 May 2017 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
On what basis is User:Volunteer Marek's addition of "McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll" removed? Whether it really is a joke is questionable, because Ryan treated it as serious. It really makes no difference, even if it were a joke, because it's reliably sourced, extremely notable, widely covered, and should be restored. (It's a bombshell revelation which appears to show Ryan engaging in both obstruction of justice and conspiracy. That's pretty serious.)
As the source said, Putin is known to financially support the campaigns and personal pockets of right wing populists like Trump. (Trump is not known to ever refuse money, especially laundered money from Russian mobsters, as well as money from Russian business interests and Russian banks. There was a long period where he was essentially bankrupt and no American banks would loan him money, and most of his funds came from the named Russian sources.)
So, just document what happened. That's our obligation. Censorship of such a notable event is a serious violation of NPOV. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 07:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The policy governing this matter is WP:TRIVIA. It's an editorial call based on how RS treat a matter. Our opinions are not a factor in how we make that call. If a matter which we might personally think is trivial is the subject of deeper discussion in a major RS (as in this case), or is covered by multiple RS (also this case), then the sources are not treating it as trivia, so our personal opinion doesn't matter. We must mention it. The current content may need some revision, but it should be included. Its significance is shown in the WaPo article:
The next step is to tweak it and return it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
We must mention it.No, there is no policy that says Wikipedia must mention everything that makes the front page of the Washington Post. We are building an encyclopedia, not a political gazette. Look up the ten-year test. — JFG talk 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Well I am not sure it is quite that clear cut. So lets make it easy. We can discus the details once we are sure we should even include it. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
It's covered in multiple RS in a serious manner, and not treated at all as trivia. To ignore it is a violation of NPOV. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
If you think a user has breached the rules, report then. Please do not discus it here as it is irrelevant.
Slatersteven (
talk)
16:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, what's sad is your inability to let it go and this obsessive need to attack me directly. Let it goooooo. Let it goooooo. Your comments never bothered me anyway. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
And "what trash reporting" is not a policy based !vote. So it can be safely discounted and ignored in closing this poll. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The Trump/Russia investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation:
BullRangifer ( talk) 04:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The article appears to completely overlook the occurrences of voter registration hacking, as covered by a number of sources [5] [6] [7] [8] and more. While the message from on high has been something to the effect of "only registration was hacked, not the actual vote" I believe this to be a fallacy and its potential impact on the election to be severely understated. The way voter eligibility works in most places across the country, if your registration is not valid well ahead of the election date, you will not be able to vote in that election. Merely by tampering with voter registration at a convenient time (for example, changing an absentee voter's registered address right before ballots are mailed) it is possible to prevent people from voting, and as these databases contain information such as ethnicity and party affiliation, it is possible to target specific demographics and effect a campaign of voter suppression. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 07:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's my draft copy - likely can be cleaned up:
As early as June 2016, the FBI sent a warning to states about "bad actors" probing state-elections systems to seek vulnerabilities. [1] In September 2016, FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI was "looking 'very, very hard' at Russian hackers who may try to disrupt the U.S. election" and that federal investigators had detected hacked-related activities in state voter-registration databases, [2] which independent assessments determined were "extremely vulnerable to hacking." [3] Comey stated: "There have been a variety of scanning activities which is a preamble for potential intrusion activities as well as some attempted intrusions at voter database registrations beyond those we knew about in July and August." [1] He told Congress that the Bureau was looking into "just what mischief is Russia up to in connection with our election." [4] This statement echoed a comment by a U.S. intelligence official the previous month, who told NBC News that "there is serious concern" about Russian government-directed interference in the U.S. presidential election. [3] Earlier, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper attributed Russian hacking attempts to Vladimir Putin, stating that he was "'paranoid' about the potential for revolutions in Russia,'and of course they see a U.S. conspiracy behind every bush, and ascribe far more impact than we're actually guilty of.'" [4] In September 2016, U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials and the National Association of Secretaries of State reported that hackers had penetrated, or sought to penetrate, the voter-registration systems in more than 20 states over the previous few months. [2] Federal investigators attributed these attempts to Russian government-sponsored hackers, [1] and specifically to Russian intelligence agencies. [3] Four of the intrusions into voter registration databases were successful, including intrusions into the Illinois and Arizona databases. [4] Although the hackers did not appear to change or manipulate data, [2] [1] Illinois officials reported that information on up to 200,000 registered voters was stolen. [3] The FBI and DHS increased their election-security coordination efforts with state officials as a result. [1] [2] In August 2016, the FBI issued a nationwide "flash alert" warning state election officials about hacking attempts. [3] Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reported that 18 states had requested voting-system security assistance from DHS. [1] The department also offered "more comprehensive, on-site risk and vulnerability" assessments to the states, but just four states expressed interest, as the election was rapidly approaching. [2] The reports of the database intrusions prompted alarm from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, who wrote to the FBI: "The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War." [4]
References
Tagging MrX, Ham Pastrami, SPECIFICO - don't know if this approximates what you had in mind. -- Neutrality talk 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think we should expand the logical scope of this article to something like this:
We can't document collusion yet, but there is abundant evidence in RS of a very close relationship between the Trump administration, including Trump, and Russian officials of various types, including the meeting in the Oval Office, a relationship which is friendlier than between Trump and Americans of all stripes. We need to be able to include material related to the aftermath. What think ye? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Per the section below, I think at some point we'll get an article on the investigation itself and that will effectively accomplish what you propose. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a good case to split the article now. I have created a draft here: Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, please take a look. This article would then focus solely on the Russian interference topic, basically keeping everything that I haven't moved into the draft. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 10:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Investigation by Special Counsel
Maybe this could also become its own article? Sagecandor ( talk) 19:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
A brief mention for now, then a split when more info comes out. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
A new article popped up related to Russian interference. Looks like it could use a substantial amount of help Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election if anyone is interested. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The very first sentence of this article, as well as the title and subsequent content, make a claim that seems to be sourced from media sources rather than the direct source: the actual Intelligence report. The actual report cited by those media sources and this article does not say that that Russia "interfered in" the elections. Shouldn't the title and lead sentence reflect what the actual report said (ie "influence campaign"), instead of what media sources said? The "interfered in" claim should be attributed only to media sources, not a report that makes no such claim. Intelligent readers understand the difference between "interference" and "influence", as well as the difference between "election" and "campaign", even if many journalists don't (or pretend not to). Blue Eyes Cryin ( talk) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.”VM cited two articles in which Reuters is "quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials." It gets tiresome to go over this again and again. Volunteer Marek and MjolnirPants, can't you just admit at this point that what Darouet said about BBC and Reuters was accurate? VM in particular likes to quote WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so they should understand my frustration here. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 20:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
So in other words, Darouet said they always use the word "alleged" and VM proved that they didn't. Not that it would even matter, because one or two large media groups taking an editorial policy to prefer a certain phrasing doesn't change how they actually treat the subject, a discussion you and I have had numerous times over the past six months or so, and which I've observed you to have with numerous other editors over that time, as well. This issue was settled quite some time ago. The fact that there are a small handful of editors who continue to push this POV despite their arguments having been brought up and shot down countless times is evidence of nothing but that old, discredited canard about insanity. I suppose that might be of particular interest to you two, because it shows that a claim which is obviously false can still contain quite a bit of truth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials”(emphasis added). Read the bolded part of the quote. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officialsblatantly contradict your false paraphrase,
they always use the word "alleged". - Darouet ( talk) 21:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain En savoir plus sur, which is to say American intelligence imputed to the Russians, which is what this article says. It says that American intelligence announced the Russians hacked the Democrats; but it has yet to be tied to the Trump team. [12]
The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.. It doesn’t say alleged. Objective3000 ( talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials”.
“they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials”(emphasis added).
"piratages informatiques ciblant les démocrates, imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain"(my translation: "hacks targeted at the Democrats, attributed to Russia by American intelligence services"). Le Monde very clearly attributes the view that Russia is responsible for the hacks to US intelligence, which is in line with what BBC and Reuters do. Le Monde doesn't take a stance on whether or not this attribution is correct. This is what I've found, in general, reading Le Monde.
"The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election."That's what the Senate Judiciary subcommittee is investigating. I don't see any statement by AP that Russia interfered in the election. I just see a description of the subject of the investigation.
"A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters"(emphasis added). This is entirely in line with what Darouet said above about Reuters and BBC.
"Numerous sources have already been given of U.S. RS that do not use alleged."The sources that do not use "alleged" are mostly quoting from US intelligence officials. When a newspaper quotes someone, it doesn't mean that the newspapers is endorsing that person's views. A major problem is that many editors here are taking such examples (where a newspaper says, "US intelligence officials say that ...") as evidence that newspapers treat "Russian interference" as a fact.
Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment for Moscow
President Trump’s decision to fire James Comey as FBI director was the latest in a series of destabilizing jolts to core institutions of the U.S. government, actions that, although driven by the president, have in some ways amplified the effect Russia sought to achieve with its effort to undermine the 2016 presidential race. And while the Kremlin may have hoped for sanctions relief from the Trump administration, the tumult in the United States is a welcome alternative.
SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
And come on, even Trump's man Tillerson says they did it, without any 'alleged' in there [16]. I'm pretty sure even Trump agreed that they did it (I think the source for that is already in the article). The only question is how and why and who was involved. This is really a pointless discussion at this point. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This is really a pointless discussion at this point.I agree. I would like to point out that the onus for ceasing this endless argument lies on all editors involved, not just those pushing the minority POV. All of us should stop discussing this. I'm aware that the minority view is unlikely to heed my advice, but if the majority view does listen to me, the result will be the same. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion here [17] that NeilN consider whether reinstating the "no reinsertion without consensus" provision, which remains in place on most other ARBAP2 pages, would relieve us all of the edit-warring and the need to reply to repetitive minority arguments to change consensus. As it stands, when editors don't reply to each attempt to change consensus, silence is claimed to be assent and edit-warring ensues. The reinstatement of that provision would obviate these repetitive and needless rehash pile-ups. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@ MjolnirPants: Calling one core constituency the "consensus" is an exaggeration. The two constituencies are similar in size, with the "represent only the views of US intelligence" constituency being a majority, but by no means an overwhelming one. The "treat the issue with the same caution as BBC, Reuters, and most other major news outlets" constituency is a very significant minority here. "Consensus" suggests something more than a 60%/40% split, which looks to be approximately what we have. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"With enough reliable sources, you will be able to convince enough editors to change the current consensus."Sadly, this hasn't been the case. Above, Darouet went through BBC and Reuters reporting and showed quite clearly what their editorial stance is. That was brushed off (which was a great disrespect, in my opinion, since no one else on this talk page has done that much work to go through the source material). I went through a random assortment of press coverage of the issue a few months ago ( here), but that also had no effect. Instead, I was accused of cherry-picking (I actually chose the first Google hits for the search phrase "Russian interference in us election"). That's why I'm baffled that every time this issue comes up, a number of editors show up and say things like, "We've already shown abundant RS that treat Russian interference as a fact." Looking through the archives of the talk page, the opposite is actually the case. The majority of the source work - seeing whether sources treat Russian interference as fact - has actually been done by the "constituency" that wants to present a range of views in the article. The other constituency has consistently blown off these discussions of reliable sources. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.”I don't know why, but you (and a few others) constantly ignore the bolded part of that sentence. Can you reply to the bolded part of the sentence? Do you agree that when a newspaper quotes or paraphrases someone, the newspaper isn't necessarily implying that that person is correct? If you agree, I don't see how you can use the absence of "alleged" in the articles you cited as evidence that Le Monde, Reuters, etc. treat "Russian interference" as something other than an allegation. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I just migrated these reports, please add them to the article if / where appropriate.
Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Two additions should be added to the Julian Assange Section. Neutral information. First, is to add to his claim about how a 14 ye3ar old could hack podesta's email. It should be noted that podesta's password for one of his computer was "username: jpodesta; password: p@assword" and Assange claims his password was literally "password". I've also heard it was "12345password".
Second, is to add his claim that Seth Rich was one of his sources. The information related to his unsolved murder, the active investigation by the local police, and the non-investigation on the federal level, are all relevant. It should be written in a way that doesn't have a bias towards any conspiracy theory, but is very relevant information given Julian Assange's claim & the significant impact of that claim. Anyone could have murdered Seth Rich. It could have been a random robbery (although nothing was stolen - which should be mentioned), it could have been a US group, or it could have been the Russias. All relevant, but speculation should NOT be mentioned. Just the information about the murder & current investigation & statements by Julian Assange.
Third, It should also be noted that Julian Assange has a track record of substantiated evidence (unless you can prove otherwise; using evidence to disprove WikiLeaks claims). Meanwhile, websites like the Washington Post have significantly worse track records when it comes to the evidence validating/invalidating their claims. This is very important. It means nothing, but is relevant to the truth because it is evidence-based reliability. Using the Scientific Method, you can quantify both sources. If evidence has ever concluded to prove or disprove a claim, that actually matters. All of it should be written in an unbiased way though - the evidence is what matters NOT opinion. Unsubstantiated claims by Assange should be written as a "claim", not a "conclusion". Although the FBI "concluded" rather than "Claimed", despite the lack of public evidence. So this article already has a bias in favor of the US government, which IMO should be corrected as not all of us are Americans.
edit: Actually, I think it would be better to simply mention Julian Assange's statement that Seth Rich was his source, he was murdered, and then simply link to the relevant Wikipedia article. No reason to add anything to that section outside that brief sentence & single link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:f040:34:7db9:20b3:a5ff:becd ( talk • contribs)
These article are significant. The Guardian is an excellent RS, and they contain significant details.
Here's something I noticed:
The linked article, which Clapper "confirmed" as "true" and having "quite sensitive" "specifics", is important too:
References
BullRangifer ( talk) 03:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
NPOV is all about how editors must not alter biased sources and content. See my essay which goes in depth on this subject: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content.
If we really keep context in mind, Clapper MUST be dishonest at times, especially when dealing with Trump. That's his job as an investigator. He has to keep his cards close to his body so he doesn't compromise the investigation. IOW, he is likely understating things. Today, when Clapper said there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, he's probably sitting with several strong pieces of evidence proving it, but is just stringing Trump along and giving him more rope to hang himself. Some day we'll find out what's on those alarming taped conversations between Trump's people and the Russians which caused foreign intelligence agencies to notify our intelligence agencies. It must have been serious. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Should be added. Both refused to do it. Casprings ( talk) 22:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed by CNN: Trump asked DNI, NSA to deny evidence of Russia collusion http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/index.html Casprings ( talk) 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
NBC News Confirms: Trump Asked Top Intel Officials To Push Back Publicly on Russia Probe http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-asked-top-intel-officials-push-back-publicly-russia-probe-n763336 Casprings ( talk) 01:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Whilst I do not think we should add every bit of tittle tattle I think this is very relevant, even if it is just an example of the total lack of trust Donny now suffers from. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
In accordance with his comments here, Casprings added several sentences to the article lede. I reverted them, stating that some of the wording was problematic and the information did not belong in the lede. Casprings and I then discussed it at my talk page,
here, and reached consensus that a modified version could go in the article text. We did not discuss where in the article the material should go. Obviously it should be somewhere in the "2017 developments" section. I would suggest the "Comey memos" subsection be renamed with a more general title, such as "White House attempts to influence the investigation" (too suggestive) or "White House contacts with law enforcement agencies". I think the existing material in the article about Comey's memos could be condensed into a single, better organized paragraph, and then the following material added:
References
Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Per the RS in the previous section right above, we can use Investigation of suspected cover-up. This is the third phase of the existing investigations and is covered by much of Comey's, FBI's and CIA's current activities. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
In preparation for restoring the content, and
Casprings, you write well, so you're welcome to perform the honors
, please keep in mind that content in the body has primacy over content in the lead. Add to the body, and then add a short summary to the lead. There shouldn't be any content or references in the lead which are not first used in the body (except certain types of minor facts). You can read more on the subject here:
WP:CREATELEAD.
Also incorporate the references and their content found above in the previous section. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with "coverup". That term is not being used in connection with these White House actions; it sounds more like WP:SYNTH. Again, let's not get ahead of the reporting. Earlier I objected to "White House attempts to influence the investigation" but maybe that would be the best title for what we have right now. -- MelanieN ( talk) 10:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks MelanieN, that's a very good start, but I have some questions or suggestions.
"In his call with Rogers, Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion, according to officials briefed on the exchange. [emphasis added]"
"The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation. [emphasis added]"
"The former official told NBC News that Coats and Rogers did not believe they were being asked to do something illegal. It was more of a public relations request, they believed, according to the official. 'I don't think [Trump] ever asked somebody to say something that they didn't believe was true', the former official said. [emphasis added]"
So did Trump make a different request to Rogers to Coats or were they both truthful and do we need to note this discrepancy?
According to NBC News, one of them wrote a memo because the request was "extraordinary", and they exchanged notes, but neither of them was not "sufficiently concerned that they reported it"
. We should add something about this.
I take issue with the last sentence ("In addition ...
) – Flynn investigation is not related to the FBI's probe of alleged Russian election interference. If the sentence is to be included, it should mention the Flynn investigation, and the content should be moved somewhere else, separate from content that is directly related to Russia investigation.
Section title that includes "cover-up" would totally improper because it's not based on sources.
Politrukki (
talk)
11:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
My proposed wording does not say or imply that the White House request was asking them to lie.I saw that, and I thank you for being careful. "False" was used in the edit you reverted and in the discussion on your talk page (also, as you may have noticed, someone added "false statements" to Trump's bio and I deleted "false"). But I also wanted to highlight that I think the WaPo piece is very difficult to parse. Again, WaPo says:
"Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion [emphasis added]". That's the biggest "if" I've seen in a long time. That's WaPo saying in its editorial voice that Rogers was asked to tell the truth (no, that would not make the request any less idiotic, in my opinion). We don't know what kind of request Trump supposedly made to Coats because WaPo doesn't say it – either because they don't know or because they refuse to tell – but they do call the appeals "similar". Here's what I propose:
After Comey revealed in March that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump reportedly asked Director of National Security admiral Michael S. Rogers to speak out publicly if he had not seen evidence of collusion. He also made a similar request to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats. [1] Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate, though not illegal, and did not make the requested statement. The two exchanged notes about the incident, and Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request. [2] [3]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
but also says"The documentation of Mr. Trump's request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia. ... Part of the Flynn investigation is centered on his financial links to Russia and Turkey.
My interpretation of all this is that Flynn could be investigated for things that are related to Russia but unrelated to collusion. The cited WaPo piece does not even hint what Flynn is being investigated for. The immunity offer is a moot point because the request was rejected both in House and Senate Intelligence committees and not all experts even agree that Flynn's request was serious:In testimony to the Senate last week, Mr. McCabe said, "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date." Mr. McCabe was referring to the broad investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The investigation into Mr. Flynn is separate.
"Some experts cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions about Mr. Flynn's request for immunity."That being said, you don't have refute me on this because I approve your edit. I'm just going to make one or three bold edits that add content.
MelanieN, it concerns me that you would make an accusation of SYNTH, when I have repeatedly pointed to the section above, where there are several RS which use the term "cover-up". Use of that word is indeed based on RS. It is the third phase of the ongoing investigation. The suggestion is also worded neutrally (Suspected cover-up). That is the most accurate and short description, and it's used by RS, including Elijah Cummings:
(Pinging Casprings & Politrukki) -- BullRangifer ( talk) 14:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have merged this wording with the Comey memo material, and have put it in the article in place of the Comey memo subsection, in a section titled "White House attempts to influence the investigation." We had not really reached a consensus on the section title but I felt there was sufficient consensus to add the material, leaving room for more discussion on the title. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to call attention to a couple of comments which are buried in the middle of a discussion above:
From Politrukki: And oh, for the love of muffins, people, please stop adding new material to the lead unless it's something crucial!
From me: I certainly agree with you that people need to stop adding the latest headline to the lede. (Today's example: all the edit warring over Feinstein's comment.) If something is new and relevant, put it in the article text, not the lede. The lede is only for summarizing the most important points from the text.
Bottom line: when you have new, sourced material that is relevant to this article, please put it in the appropriate section of article text, with references. Only after it is determined to be an essential part of the overall story should it be added to the lede as well. -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Lordy this is so freaking annoying. Why do people add shit straight into the intro that is not first in the body ? So stupid. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials. I also spent some time reading other wiki articles on this topic. Basically, despite longstanding objections from dozens of editors here, a cautious editorial policy (something that the BBC has somehow managed) is thrown to the wind. - Darouet ( talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The BBC (News, Global News, Newsday, Newshour, Business Matters, Radio 4) routinely describes “alleged interference” or “possible hacking.” This appears to have been their policy in print and voice since the story broke, and it remains true today:
Reuters appears to do the same thing:
(I have found one example to the contrary, from 11 April):
Nobody here has ever articulated why (or how we'd know) that the BBC or Reuters are wrong to be cautious. Should we be cautious? Or should Wikipedia lead the charge?
I don't think our article at present accurately conveys what is known and thought, by reliable sources, about these allegations around the world.
For instance the French article on this topic is titled, “Accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.” The Spanish article has the same title, “Accusations…” and the German article is titled “2016 hacking affair between Russia and the US.” The French article contains an 8-part section titled “Skepticism of the hypothesis of Russian interference,”
These sections do what one expect given the circumstances of the allegations: cite journalists, cybersecurity experts, and political figures who are skeptical, and sometimes provide alternative explanations for the allegations. Among those cited:
Why should we care? Because no one has come forward with actual evidence of the alleged hacking by Russia. That's why. 8675309 ( talk) 20:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
By contrast, our article baldly declares the allegations are true (title), dedicates the beginning of the intro to a long quote directly from American intelligence agencies, and mostly quotes cybersecurity experts or former intelligence officials who believe the government has been too weak against Russia (except for instance in the “Joint Analysis Report” section).
We don't need to follow what the French Wikipedia does. But we need to consider how we've gotten to the point where we take an aggressive editorial line that this event really did occur (which it might have), when major news outlets like Reuters and the BBC don't. - Darouet ( talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined."That's exactly the case here. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 06:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't an RFC on this subject closed today? Consensus is pretty clear and this seems like a dead horse. If you disagree, I would suggest challenging the RFC's close. Casprings ( talk) 22:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups."Notice that "alleged" is in the voice of the BBC. Before commenting, please read through the quotes more carefully. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how your post addresses this at all.Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it really seems like the problem isn't on my end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
"Russia succeeded in its goals of sowing discord in U.S. politics by meddling in the 2016 presidential election, which will likely inspire similar future efforts, two top former U.S. voices on intelligence said on Tuesday."Reuters isn't claiming that the claims of those officials are correct. Your second source does the exact same thing:
"Congressional committees began investigating after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered hacking of Democratic political groups to try to sway the election toward Trump."Darouet could have cited those articles as well, and they would equally have bolstered the case that Reuters always treats "Russian interference" as an allegation (whether by attributing the claim or by explicitly saying "alleged"). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 04:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur. As a general rule we should always lean toward being careful regarding how we describe unproven allegations. In this case the number of sources describing the charges as alleged, or even openly questioning the lack of evidence backing the accusations, is overwhelming. This is not even a remotely close call. Adlerschloß ( talk) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the RfC has properly been installed by Casprings. The wording is "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."
The RfC determined that "alleged" is not the proper word. "Concluded" is the proper word.
Why a "reboot"? Because the discussion is off-track because it is about what actually happened, not about the belief of "The United States government's intelligence agencies." One can have one's doubts about whether Russia was involved or not, but there can be no doubt that "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded..." THEY are not in doubt. We write their conclusion, not what someone thinks actually happened. Those are two different things.
This whole thread is way off track. This should end the discussion. Rehashing the RfC is not an option at this point. Such a rehashing is disruption. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I have not followed the discussion or the RFC, but I've just given it a quick read. I would strongly encourage you to move this article to Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, because that's what it is. Moreover, the lede uses the word "stated" several times, when it should be "hypothesized." Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 03:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
How is it that we can claim Russia did something without actual evidence? Is it possible? Sure. Has Russia been proven to be involved? No. Why are we acting like this happened? 8675309 ( talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
At some point some mention of the new Aaron Nevins revelations should be added. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/anthony-nevins-roger-stone-stolen-democratic-voter-analyses SecretName101 ( talk) 23:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Should be added to his section and someone this close to POTUS is a big deal. Casprings ( talk) 22:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
NBC Confirming: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jared-kushner-now-under-fbi-scrutiny-russia-probe-say-officials-n764826?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma Casprings ( talk) 22:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
CNN: FBI Russia investigation looking at Kushner role http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/fbi-russia-investigation-jared-kushner/index.html Casprings ( talk) 00:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The Washington Post: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html 23:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-kushner-exclusive-idUSKBN18N018
Should be in article. Casprings ( talk) 01:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
NYT confirms article: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC Casprings ( talk) 02:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
In a CNN interview three weeks ago, Diane Feinstein's responded "Not at this time" when asked
This information is out of date (see, for example, this), and it's not particularly significant enough to merit inclusion in this article. Based on what is known today, it represents a minority viewpoint that has largely been promulgated by questionable sources like Breitbart and The Washington Times. I think this material should remain out of the article.- Mr X 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
"The specific issue is not "inappropriate contact", it's collusion"Well, collusion falls under inappropriate contact. It's true that at this point there is no clear answers to what happened, but within the article both points of view about possible collusion are already presented. Feinstein's comment doesn't make anything any clearer. It's noise that will be forgotten once the investigation starts yielding results.- Mr X 15:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
If the article included lots of quotes from people who think there IS evidence of collusion, then it would be appropriate to include Feinstein saying that she has not yet seen any. But as I look at the article, or at least the section on Senate committees where that was added, I don't find any quotes from anyone stating that there IS evidence of collusion. Basically she is just saying exactly what everyone else is saying: "We just don't know yet." She just said it in a way that conservative media chose to highlight. For that reason I don't see any reason to include her comments in the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
"those investigations have turned up no such evidence.". She said:
Very very very obviously it should be included. … Feinstein ought to be in the lead sentence, and you want to wipe her out of the article. Give me a break.-- --Anythingyouwant) to put in a statement by a third person saying she hasn't (yet) seen such evidence? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Here are excerpts from the lead suggesting collusion between Trump and Russia during the campaign:
“ | Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015....Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner and advisers Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone....On March 20, 2017, FBI director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI had been conducting a counter-intelligence investigation about Russian interference since July 2016, including possible coordination between associates of Trump and Russia.... | ” |
In contrast, there is not one word in the lead saying that no evidence of collusion has been found to date. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with MelanieN not to include it, that assessment is the best one in this section so far [26]. Sagecandor ( talk) 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Cluttering everywhere is obviously suboptimal. It is being discussed here, robustly. Not immediately obvious that it needs to be discussed elsewhere, but if someone judges that it needs more involvement, one option is an RfC, another is to determine the central issue and decide if there is a good, relevant noticeboard. It seems to me to be an issue of neutrality, and only involves BLP in a way that would allow almost anything to qualify. If this was a low-traffic page, I'd understand the need to take it elsewhere.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it is better just to state that Feinstein said she had not seen any evidence. Not important how she phrased it, who was asking the question, where she was, what she was wearing, the temperature outside, etc. TFD ( talk) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
An IP user has inserted a link to this article on Template:Conspiracy theories. I have removed it — given that the reliable sources do not describe the Russia affair as a "conspiracy theory" — but I wanted to flag the issue on this page. If you can, please add the template to your watchlist - more eyeballs always appreciated. Neutrality talk 02:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election#RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him?. -
Mr
X
14:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
[28]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
NYT independtly confirms: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC
We should go ahead and add it. Two very high quality WP:RSes. Casprings ( talk) 02:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Rather than talk about this (or anything else) in the abstract, I find it almost always more productive for someone to put suggested language on the table (either at talk or through an appropriate edit). So if someone has a suggested draft? Neutrality talk 02:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Disagree with this summary added to the lede [30].
This article is not just about the FBI investigation.
It is about the wider topic itself.
Though there could be another separate article about the FBI investigation only, and or the Special counsel. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Today's changes to the lead section by Enthusiast01 [31] and MelanieN [32] have redefined the scope of this article as covering the investigations about Russian election interference and suspected Trump campaign misdeeds. In prior discussions, the scope had been defined as covering Russian meddling activities broadly construed, and not just the investigations about them. More recently, as the article grew to include various allegations about the Trump entourage, I suggested a split between the Russian election interference here and the Trump–Russia collusion investigations elsewhere (see draft), but this proposal was rebuked. Now, if the scope is redefined as all-inclusive of various investigations into Trumpian affairs beyond Russian election interference, then the title is grossly inappropriate. What can we do? I see three logical options:
Thoughts? — JFG talk 22:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
"Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, also called the Russia investigation, refers to investigations by agencies..."is poorly-worded and semantically incorrect. Interference is not a synonym for investigation. The edit also reduced the scope of the interference from U.S. election to Presidential elections, which has previously been discussed (with sources) on this page. Now I'm off to fix the grammatical error left by another user earlier today.- Mr X 23:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
"several off-topic or loosely related sections should then be removed". What do you consider to be off-topic or loosely related?- Mr X 23:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Should this article have major non-related events? It seems like that would provide some context when reading a timeline. For example a SC justice being sworn in, health care, or a new war. I just think it would help the timeline because you would understand the other ongoimg Casprings ( talk) 02:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I just realized I posted this on the wrong article. Meant for the timeline related article. Casprings ( talk) 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)|
I think the whole Disclosure of classified information to Russia section should be deleted as it does not go to Russian interference nor the investigation of officials. Enthusiast01 ( talk) 01:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The Comey related stuff definitely belongs in there. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
NO, it is not really related. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree the disclosure of classified information is irrelevant to this subject. I suggest that we transfer this sentence to the Comey paragraph - In a
May 10 private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak, Trump told Russian officials that firing the F.B.I. director, James Comey, had relieved "great pressure" on him. He stated, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," adding "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."
[1]
- and delete the rest of the section.
MelanieN (
talk)
19:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
See "House Democrats fire two IT staffers amid criminal investigation" Heather Caygle, Politico): "Alvi, Awan and three other House aides, including Abid Awan and Jamal Awan, relatives of Imran Awan, and Rao Abbas, are all linked to the criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Capitol Police. The five current and former House staffers are accused of stealing equipment from members’ offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the probe." TFD ( talk) 21:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I've partially, but not fully, restored some content deleted by JFG (with the edit summary "Remove a bunch of off-topic asides and redundant opinions"), although I have edited the text of some to be clearer and more precise. I find much of the material at issue to be very much on topic and not redundant. Going in order:
After a few days of abundant discussion of this issue on WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince, there is an even split between editors who consider this story a BLP violation and editors who don't. Therefore we should err on the side of caution and remove the material until such time that it gets corroborated by independent reporting or new facts. — JFG talk 07:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
"especially by involved or self-interested parties."What do you mean by that? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The extensive discussion at BLP/N resulted in consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok. Consequently, here's my suggestion, shortening the current section:
On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian envoy in the Seychelles, allegedly to "establish a back-channel line of communication" between Trump and Putin. [1] The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates in order to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. Prince is the brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and was a major donor to Trump's election campaign. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition." [1]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
It's still longer than "a line or two" in order to fairly represent the subject matter. Support, Oppose, Amend? — JFG talk 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Mr. X here This seems well sourced and relevant to the article. Did you post something on this page's talk page concerning the discussion at BLP/N? Other editors should have been able to talk part in the discussion. Casprings ( talk) 01:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Neutrality: You did say in the original discussion that you would possibly approve a trimmed version. Would you be satisfied with my paragraph above summarizing the Washington Post , followed by the last paragraph in the current prose, summarizing the NBC News report about what intelligence officials added? Same question to MrX. — JFG talk 08:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that in January, Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met with an unidentified Russian associate of Vladimir Putin, in the Seychelles. According to U.S., European, and Arab officials, the meeting was arranged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to establish a back-channel link between Trump and Putin. The UAE and Trump's associates reportedly tried to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. The FBI is investigating the Seychelles meeting which took place after previous meetings in New York between Trump's associates and officials from Russia and the Emirates, at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community. Prince was a major contributor to Trump's election campaign, and appears to have close ties to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. The Trump administration denied knowledge of the meeting and said that Prince was not involved in the Trump campaign. [1]
Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia. [2]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
"The FBI, however, refused to comment.", which I added, but not DeVos. Politrukki ( talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian associate of Putin in the Seychelles. [1] The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates to establish a back channel between Trump and Putin and to convince Russia to distance itself from Iran. U.S. officials said the FBI was investigating the meeting as part of their inquiry into election interference and Trump–Russia relations. Prince was a major donor to Trump's election campaign and has been linked to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition." [1]
Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia. [2]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
MrX's version per SPECIFICO. Casprings ( talk) 11:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
MrX + DeVos, then. SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion on BLP/N, with input from a number of editors who aren't normally involved on this page. It looked at the end of the discussion like the result was to include something about Erik Prince in this article, but to keep it short, with clear attribution of the various claims. The latest text proposed above is far too long, in my opinion. I don't see how a news story that blew over pretty quickly could possibly merit such a detailed treatment here. The initial proposal by JFG looks best.
The contradiction between a number of editors' stances on the Erik Prince material and the Joint Analysis Report section is baffling to me. The JAR is central to this story, since it's the one of the most comprehensive reports the US government has released on the alleged Russian interference so far. But the very same editors who are arguing vociferously that our description of the JAR (particularly the reaction of outside experts to it) must be curtailed are arguing here that we must cover a relative sideshow (that didn't even occur before the election, and therefore has questionable relation to the subject of this article) in great detail. The contradiction between these two stances is just confusing. I'm trying to formulate a coherent theory in my head that reconciles these two seemingly opposite stances, but the only theory I can come up with has to do with the political implications of the different pieces of content, not with any Wikipedia policy. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
So here we are, after a month of discussion here and at BLPN, instead of turning this story into a "brief mention" as agreed, the latest proposals still argue to keep most of the contents and innuendo in a rather lengthy paragraph. Meanwhile, this "mysterious" meeting did not get any more press coverage, nothing seems to have come out of the reported discussions, and "back-channel" stories are now focusing on other places and other people. One still wonders why Trump would need to open all those back channels to Putin if they were long-time BFFs colluding to steal the election. But as long as it's printed in a reliable source, it seems the most tenuous stories must be included in the encyclopedia these days… At least we should be relieved that this one didn't spawn its own article. Any volunteers to finally cut the wording on this particular "spy-novel-of-the-day"? — JFG talk 13:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is getting big.
Time to form sub articles and then to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE back here? Sagecandor ( talk) 16:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The section " Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials" is a laundry list of detective clues, which kind of begs to be forked into its own article. Many of the reported contacts are indeed related to Russia but unrelated to the election interference. — JFG talk 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Public-opinion polls
Way too big.
Can someone maybe trim this down, and or make it into a table format ? Sagecandor ( talk) 19:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Commentary and reactions
Whole entire section should be spun out, and or just judiciously trimmed way way down.
We are losing focus.
Time to see the forest for the trees.
Article should focus on the facts, events, developments, and not become over bloated with "Commentary" and "Reactions" that are not official developments and facts. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
User:MrX: I don't believe it is "undue" to add a small subsection about Russian reactions. If it were five long paragraphs, it would be undue. I added two lines based on an article from the Financial Times, which were overdue. We need to include all relevant views. We are not an advertising website for the USIC; we are an encyclopedia. I'd like you to remove the "undue" tag and hopefully let other editors add a few more Russian reactions. Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The whole entire section Commentary and reactions is too big. It could either be spun off, and or judiciously trimmed down. Way too big. Article should stick to just the facts and events and developments. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)