We have had numerous changes and even a bit of edit warring over the sentence about protests in the final paragraph of the lede. That paragraph, as inserted by User:‪Power~enwiki‬, contained this sentence:

• Version A: Both his inauguration and certain policies, such as the travel ban, produced large protests throughout the United States.

User:JFG replaced that (edit summary Copyedit on protests; inauguration was already linked above, and protests started on election day) with

• Version B: Trump's election and certain policies were opposed in numerous protests.

I replaced it (edit summary Replacing passive-voice, vague sentence with clearer, active-voice sentence) with

• Version C: There were numerous protests, both in the United States and worldwide, against his election and some of his policies.

JFG then replaced that (edit summary Shorten bit on protests; linked article has all details) with

• Version D (currently in the article): Multiple protests stemmed from his election and some of his policies.
• Version E: His election and some of his policies sparked numerous protests.

Can we get a choice among these four versions, and not make any more changes until we reach consensus? I actually prefer the original version A (but saying "election" instead of "inauguration", and possibly "provoked" instead of "produced"). Second choice would be my own version C. I don't like version B as passive voice, and I thought "opposed in protests" was an odd way to put it. Version D seems to me like a watered down statement that could be made about any president; also, to me "stemmed from" is an odd idiom to use here; it kind of suggests that the protests were a normal or even an intended result of his election and policies. BTW our text in the article says "His election sparked" numerous protests, and I would be OK with that approach as well. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the lede section, we must keep things short, while conveying that protests were out of the ordinary for an elected US president. I don't see any other president's lede section talking about protests, so the mere fact that we mention them here is exceptional. Further qualifying them as "in the U.S. and worldwide" is unnecessary. I absolutely oppose "provoked", which would make it sound as if Trump wanted protests and deliberately induced them, I don't think we can reasonably say that. Trump was rather annoyed at the ongoing protests during the transition, before he was even in office, and asked a few times when people would finally accept that the election was over. I would agree to use "sparked", I think that was in one of the drafts but got changed along the way. Adding version E accordingly, with "numerous" to emphasize the magnitude of the protests. — JFG ^talk 17:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

RE "We must keep thing short":I'm not aware any policy that says a sentence in the lede cannot be 18 or 19 words; it must be 10 words. In fact, if this sentence is trimmed to 10 words it may well become the shortest sentence in the lede. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@ MelanieN: I wasn't implying that any policy dictates sentence length; I was just referring to the relative weight of this event compared to the rest of the lede and to Trump's life overall. — JFG ^talk 19:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Version F: His election and policies sparked numerous protests.

No need to qualify "policies". -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Abstain I picked that wording somewhat arbitrarily, any of the choices here are fine with consensus. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support F – Shortest and to the point. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support F – Short and avoids the word were which suggests protests have ended, which we don’t know. Objective3000 ( talk) 20:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Remove all. We already say that he has caused a lot of controversies, so there's no need to add that he caused protests, disputes, disgruntlement, fisticuffs, threats, et cetera. Especially since we don't mention supportive rallies in the lead. We can wikilink "controversial" to the protest article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that would create an WP:EASTEREGG. — JFG ^talk 13:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support F - It's clear and concise—exactly the kind of writing we need in the lead.- Mr X 13:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support F. Prose-wise, "His election and policies provoked numerous protests" would beat "...sparked numerous protests", which sounds like headline language. Nonetheless it's a much-needed improvement. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

'Protests' material is parked here

This sentence, "Multiple protests stemmed from his election and some of his policies," leads to the contrary statement, "Protests against Donald Trump ... have occurred ... since Donald Trump's entry into the 2016 presidential campaign." Let's get it out of the article now (per BLP) and park it here till we come up with a version that's less misleading. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC) 06:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This material has been removed from the lead per NPOV, § PROPORTION, and parked here for further discussion.

Multiple protests stemmed from his election and some of his policies.

The " protests" link leads to the statement, "Protests against Donald Trump ... have occurred ... since Donald Trump's entry into the 2016 presidential campaign." That article takes into account, for example, the 2017 Women's March rallies, which largely stemmed from his "statements ... and positions" that were regarded as offensive to women. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 06:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

One, that should be in lede. Not sure why that was removed. Casprings ( talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Casprings: The piped WP:TALK guideline mentions that the Talk page can be used to temporarily park material that you remove from the article "due to verification or other concerns". As noted by MelanieN, at least one editor's concerns were so significant that they took it upon themselves to change the consensus material unilaterally.

I likewise have pressing concerns. In particular, NPOV § PROPORTION policy requires us to give the "Protests" aspect of the subject's life no more weight than the "body of published reliable material" on the subject gives it.

Two reasonable assumptions: (A) The total weight of published material about the "Multiple protests [that] stemmed from his election and some of his policies" has grown since our last consensus. (B) The total aggregate weight of all published material about Trump has too. If both are growing exponentially, we can expect the fraction A(t)/B(t) to have decreased since that time.

As it would appear to have done. None of us here dispute the judgment of all mainstream RS that the magnitude of the last five months' protests has yet to approach the magnitude of the January 2017 Women's March. Moreover, the weekly volume of coverage of Trump-related protests also seems to have fallen markedly from that peak. It is unreasonable to expect that our last consensus wording would still meet the minimum policy requirements set out at NPOV (PROPORTION). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede Updated

There's a clear consensus for point F and I've added it. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be too long for the lede, but for the travel ban I would word it like: "Trump issued a temporary travel ban on nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries as an attempt to prevent terrorism, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation. A revised ban, which exempted Iraqis and US citizens and permanent residents, was similarly blocked by federal courts and the Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to revert earlier court decisions". The problem with both the original sentence and your suggestion is that they don't make it clear there were two different executive orders, and that SCOTUS is considering the revised ban. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 20:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Way too much information for the lede, and especially for a biography. One short, summary sentence for the lede, a few more details in the "presidency" section, with most of the detail in related articles such as "immigration policy". The fact that there were two different executive orders is certainly not important enough for the lede. SCOTUS is not actually considering either version of the ban at this point. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Let's use the most authoritative and accurate wording: "He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I like that a lot. It's short, and short is good. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree; great condensed phrasing. — JFG ^talk 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That's better than "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation." But the title of the Order is "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States..." So at least the ostensible reason is security not religion. I disagree with only mentioning religion and not security. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I like it, certainly more direct and compact than my suggestion. Although I think "federal courts blocked it" should be at least mentioned to clarify to all readers that the ban is not in effect. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 23:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, how about this? He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries with insufficient security controls, but several U.S. courts blocked the measure arguing it was discriminating against Muslims. — JFG ^talk 23:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pending in SCOTUS, so why not just say SCOTUS is considering whether to let the ban proceed? That implies it's halted. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's all moot: the 90 days have elapsed, and Trump's original justification ("we must figure out how to vet those people") should be fulfilled by now, if customs and immigration service are doing their job. The notable fact today is that federal judges took the rare step of double-guessing the president about what he called a security issue, and what they called a religious discrimination issue. My new summary addresses this central point, wouldn't you agree? — JFG ^talk 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That wording seems very POV to me. The rationale for the order is in dispute and one should fairly provide the other sides arguments.. Casprings ( talk) 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm suggesting: this wording shows the arguments of both sides: the White House says it's a travel ban for security reasons, the judges say it's a Muslim ban disguised under a security pretext. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, it's not moot, because the district judge in Hawaii froze the 90-day internal review, and later the 9th circuit unfroze it. AKAIK, the 90 days is not up yet, but if it is then SCOTUS can still address a matter capable of repetition yet evading review. Some federal judges upheld the ban, others rejected it, and the matter is now before SCOTUS, so it's about as unsettled as can be. Instead of the current "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation" I would support "He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries with purportedly insufficient security controls, but the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the measure unlawfully discriminates against Muslims." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Anythingyouwant: By "moot", I don't mean the legal process, I mean the effective use of the temporary ban. The White House and DHS said they needed 90 days to straighten up their vetting process, and that in the meantime they deemed it too dangerous to let people from those countries come in (because of fake passports, dysfunctional states, etc.) Now, with all the legal delays, the time they requested has elapsed and Trump should have his cherished "extreme vetting" in place. I'm sure he'll fight the legal battle to the end, but it's moot. Or he lied and really wanted a permanent ban on those countries as a first step towards banning 1.6 billion Muslims! This hypothesis sounds utterly ridiculous to some people and extremely scary to some others. Isn't politics fun? — JFG ^talk 07:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, you write "Trump should have his cherished 'extreme vetting' in place." That's factually incorrect, because the Hawaii court slapped an injunction not just on the temporary ban but also on the "internal review" to determine what the temporary ban should be replaced with. The ban on internal review was only lifted by the Ninth Circuit a week ago. See " Appeals court allows Trump team to begin vetting review", USA Today (June 11, 2017). Anythingyouwant ( talk)}

@ Anythingyouwant: Thanks, I wasn't aware of this bit. Looks like an epic political battle indeed! <popcorn/> — JFG ^talk 12:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The travel ban is certainly lede-worthy but the wording is way too long, and the more we argue details of the legal process, the longer it will get. This becomes excessive for the lede of Trump's biography. What is the weight of this event in his whole life? Even my latest proposal is too long, in reaction to various comments attempting to clarify details. I would suggest trimming all this to say:

He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries, which was blocked by U.S. courts.

Leave all details to the linked articles. Agree? Disagree? — JFG ^talk 07:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Thus far" been blocked. It's an active legal case, not a final decision. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

So, this would be:

He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries, which has been blocked by U.S. courts thus far.

OK? — JFG ^talk 12:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Should tell the reader why the courts blocked it. Casprings ( talk) 13:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be very difficult because different courts said different things. The Hawaii district court relied on the First Amendment's religion clauses, but the judges of the Ninth circuit instead relied on statutes that purportedly inhibit discrimination based on nationality (as opposed to religion). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to tack "thus far" on the end, especially since it goes against WP:RELTIME. It's fine to say that it was blocked by U.S. courts. If at some point in the future it is unblocked, we modify the wording to say that it was temporarily blocked by U.S. courts. ~ Awilley ( talk) 06:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but it would not prevent us from mentioning that the matter is on appeal. Anyway, SCOTUS will probably speak to the matter tomorrow. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a good proposal. There is a lot more that could be said on the subject, but not in the lede of his biography. I would suggest a few tweaks to the proposed wording: "He ordered a temporary travel ban on citizens from six countries, but it has been blocked by U.S. courts." "which was blocked" sounds too final. I think "temporary" is enough without specifying ninety days. Your wikilink goes to the wrong travel ban, it should be the second (current) order #13780. That ban applies to only six countries. (He dropped Iraq.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's find out which statement most fairly and conservatively represents the balance of perspectives of high-quality sources worldwide: (1) "Russia interfered in the election"; (2) "Russia attempted to interfere in the election"; (3) "Russia was accused of interfering in the election"; or (4) "Russia was accused of attempting to interfere in the election".

We should consider established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. For the moment, let's focus on statements (1) and (4). If the two viewpoints are more-or-less equally conspicuous among high-quality sources, we should describe both. Let's try to find an authoritative tertiary source that does this for us in a disinterested way.

Meanwhile, here's a compilation of the relevant statements in the body text: (a) [three persons stated that the Russian government] "attempted to intervene"; (b) [one person affirmed that it] "interfered"; (c) [one person told Congress of its] "efforts to interfere"; (d) [two persons called the accusation a] "false narrative [of] interference [or a] fictitious explanation"; and (e) [one organization] "accused [it] of trying to influence" [but three persons or organizations] "denied the allegations". -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 19:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• I personally prefer the phrasing "During the election, Russia was accused of interfering to support his campaign". The problem is that "interfere" is a terribly vague word. It could mean altering vote counts (which, even after some recent testimony, reliable sources unanimously agree did not occur), or Russia paying trolls on Twitter, or Vladimir Putin saying an equivalent of "I like Trump" on national television (and reliable sources unanimously agree that Putin preferred Trump to be elected over Clinton). If we can't refer to a specific case of interference in the lede, we should mention only the non-controversial fact: that the accusation was prominent and not entirely baseless. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 for sure. The original wording simply states that Russia did interfere in the election as if it is an undisputable fact. The US intelligence community accused the Russian govt. of interference, but there's no conclusive proof of that, at least not now. Option 3 is more neutral and accurate. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we've got a disinterested tertiary source that supports (2). From " United States Presidential Election of 2016", Britannica.com:

"Federal agents strongly suspected that Russian actors were WikiLeaks’ sources... The daily drip clearly interfered with the Clinton campaign’s efforts..."

"Clinton supporters [were] variously blaming ... Russian computer hacking ... for her defeat."

"The heads of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had engaged in a systematic effort to influence the election in Trump’s favour."

Conclusion: It would appear that Russia did "attempt to influence" the election. (See Merriam-Webster Unabridged: "effort. 1. Expenditure of energy toward a particular end; forceful attempt.") -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 20:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There are other problems too with the sentence in question. The article currently says: "Russia interfered in the election to support his candidacy." This appears to suggest that the Russians' motive was more to help Trump than to hinder Clinton, and that Russia successfully engaged in electoral fraud. So, I'd suggest "U.S. intelligence agencies are confident that Russia hacked the election to support his candidacy and oppose Clinton's, though there is no evidence that the election outcome was altered by election fraud." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the version that's supported by sources. They did interfere to help Trump AND hinder Clinton (are you saying there's a difference?). And no, it doesn't imply they "successfully engaged in electoral fraud". That's moving the goalposts. First it was "they didn't interfere" then it was "we don't know if they interfered" then it was "they allegedly interfered" then it was "ok they interfered but only to sow chaos not to help Trump" then it was "ok they interfered to help Trump but Trump's associates didn't know about it" then it was "ok they interfered and some Trump associates knew about it but they didn't collude with the" then it was "ok they interfered and some Trump associates colluded with them but Trump himself didn't" and... that's where we are now. Bottomline is the text DOES NOT say "election outcome was altered by election fraud". So what are you talking about? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And this "though there is no evidence..." is total WP:OR and POV. You should know better than to even propose it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see yet again WP:NPA, which bars "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." It is untrue that the intelligence community believed Russia's efforts significantly affected the outcome of the 2016 election. [11] Quite the opposite. [12] This is appropriately conveyed by saying "U.S. intelligence agencies are confident that Russia hacked the election to support his candidacy and oppose Clinton's, though there is no evidence that the election outcome was altered by election fraud." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What accusations are you talking about? That you are claiming that the sentence says - err, sorry, "implies" - something which it doesn't say or imply and are trying to use this as an excuse for removing it? Well, that's right above in your comment so there's no "lack of evidence". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I am talking, for example, about your accusation that I am engaged in "total WP:OR and POV. You should know better than to even propose it." You provide a long litany of quotes that I never uttered --- I was not even involved in the discussion, and yet you accuse me of somehow moving goalposts ("That's moving the goalposts. First it was 'they didn't interfere' then it was 'we don't know if they interfered' then it was 'they allegedly interfered' then it was 'ok they interfered but only to sow chaos not to help Trump' then it was 'ok they interfered to help Trump but Trump's associates didn't know about it' then it was 'ok they interfered and some Trump associates knew about it but they didn't collude with the' then it was 'ok they interfered and some Trump associates colluded with them but Trump himself didn't' and... that's where we are now. Bottomline is the text DOES NOT say 'election outcome was altered by election fraud". So what are you talking about?'"). Trying to communicate civilly with you is a lot like being on the other side of the fan when it hits the fan. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, that VOA article is pretty bad. The headline doesn't even match the article text, nevermind that it's cherry picking Johnson's statement. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the VOA report, "they said there is no evidence that Moscow was able to change the vote count." A million other reliable sources say the same thing, but you just want our lead to say the Russians interfered, without even slightly hinting to our readers that it made no difference in the outcome. To me, that seems like a misleading way to write the lead. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should stick to a verifiable summary of what we know which is that Russia interfered in the election. Some of the details like their hacking into election systems, manipulating voter data in a county database, stealing nearly 90,000 voter records, attempting to co-opt members of Trump's campaign, and possible collusion by Trump satellites can be briefly covered later in the article.- Mr X 11:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Russians did a lot more than simply hack (we are still finding out what all they did). Nobody has suggested election fraud which is an entirely different thing, Nobody has claimed (because no one knows and we will never know) whether their actions altered the outcome of the election. I think we should keep the sentence currently in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Right. Given what we know right now, the current sentence best describes the situation. If the situation changes we'll update it. But pretending that the sentence says something that it doesn't say as Anythingyouwant is doing, as an excuse to try and remove it is a strawman. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@ MelanieN: The US Intelligence Community (USIC) was calling them "alleged hacked e-mails". Not "authenticated hacked e-mails" (or even just "hacked e-mails"). It's possible that they may be "leaked e-mails"; all we know is that USIC isn't saying it knows. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 22:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this at the relevant article. Most sources say they did. Hell, Trump and Tillerson themselves admitted they did, just deny "colluding" in it. Waste of time. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it interference or influence? And who are the "they", beyond "Russians"? Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Right now the article says "interfered". Why does there need to be any "beyond"? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If there are no additional details as to what "Most sources" are describing, this topic probably isn't relevant to this article at all. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We go by the RS. Russian interference are the words used by the RS. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Other words used by the RS include "Russian effort to influence", and so forth. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 22:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not getting your point. The sources say "interfered", we say "interfered" and we have an entire article titled "interfered". And from that somehow people get that... this isn't relevant to this article? Sorry, not following that illogic. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Russia was accused of interfering" is an undisputed fact. "Russia interfered to help Trump" is still a disputed assertion, like it or not. Best leave the details to the linked article, and keep things super-short in the lede of Trump's bio, for neutrality's sake. — JFG ^talk 21:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Russia was accused because they did it! I can't believe people are still trying to add expressions of doubt to this when there is no reasonable doubt. Russia interfered with the U.S. elections to get Trump elected, to prevent Clinton from being elected, and to undermine U.S. democracy. Those are facts that are no longer in dispute among mainstream sources, the U.S. Congress, U.S. Federal law enforcement, and the U.S. intelligence community.- Mr X 22:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You may believe they did it, some other people may believe they did not. There are RS going both ways, and 100 shades of grey in between, from "Russia wants to destroy US democracy" to "Dems are looking for excuses". If we're going to details, that becomes undue for Trump's bio (as was argued in the RfC discussing this a couple months ago). Fine for the lead of the 2016 election page. — JFG ^talk 23:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that there are current reliable sources that still say that Russia did not interfere with the U.S. election? We don't have to go into extensive detail in this article. Just say "Russia interfered in the election" and "Trump tried to interfere with the investigation of his campaign's role".- Mr X 23:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@ MrX: Check Britannica, which says "US intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had engaged in a systematic effort to influence the election." ("effort. Expenditure of energy toward a particular end; forceful attempt." Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) The facts no longer in dispute: Russia tried to influence it and failed. The election outcome is valid, and Trump and Clinton got there on their own. (As they both have acknowledged.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I said "interfere", not "influence", so we are evidently in agreement here.- Mr X 00:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

( ←) @ MrX: Not so. Check Black's Law Dictionary, then see whether you agree with my argument below.

Ideally the lead should suggest only that the Russians attempted to change the outcome, not that they may have changed it. Version II informs the reader better than do Versions I, III, or IV. (And Wikipedia's purpose is to 'better inform the reader'.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 03:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No. They "interfered". Whether they "influenced" is an open question. You're acting like "interfered" implies "influenced". It doesn't. Version II is just weaselin'. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No, "attempted to change the outcome" is vastly inferior than just saying "interfered", and it borders on original research. It misleads readers by suggesting a very narrow scope, when in fact we know that Russia successfully hacked into election systems, manipulated voter data in a county database, stole nearly 90,000 voter records, and so on. Of course, there is also the emerging evidence of collusion by Trump satellites, or maybe it was just a remarkable coincidence that so many of them them lied about their ties to Russia. We'll see.- Mr X 11:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's tweet [13] is probably more of a re-hashing of the recent Breitbart [14] or Washington Post [15] pieces, rather than being intended as a statement of fact. Power~enwiki ( talk) 05:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy." - This needs to be removed. It's unsourced, unproven rumor rooted in baseless political accusation and bias. There is currently no evidence for such a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:63 ( talk) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Several more proposals on Russia

There doesn't seem to be any consensus yet. I support removing this sentence from the lede if there is no consensus to be found; Russia is already discussed in the Comey dismissal sentence. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A new version, from @ ATC:, which I don't support myself: "There is emerging evidence that the Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy, but it has not been fully substantiated and is currently the subject of an ongoing investigation." Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A new proposal from me: "Russia attempted to influence the election results." It's shorter. I don't know whether they interfered or not, and I don't know whether "attempting to interfere" implies anything happened or not, but "attempt to influence" seems well-defined. They clearly did something, and it doesn't imply whether or not it mattered. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A (very different) proposal: "Several figures in Trump's campaign resigned due to undisclosed ties to Russia". The meaning is different than the above, but it is factual and related to Russia. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that any phrase we insert must be both short and neutral, and this may be a challenge! (See aborted RfC from March about this for some hints.) I like your proposal "Russia attempted to influence the election results" but that fails to mention any connection with Trump, which is strange in Trump's bio. I would amend it to "Russia attempted to influence the presidential election in support of Trump's candidacy." Not sure if that may be considered neutral, but that's the gist of what the intelligence reports have been saying since August 2016. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this from the lede; it doesn't feel necessary with the "His election and policies sparked numerous protests." sentence there. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The sentence on Russia should be returned, ASAP. The mention of Russia now has consensus. Casprings ( talk) 02:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, even if there's some disagreement as to what the proper wording should be, there's no reason to remove this entirely, since, as Casprings points out, it has consensus. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The article body gives it a subtopic weight of 0.011. So the article editors don't appear to consider it particularly important at this time. Maybe the consensus has changed? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What to say in the lede?

Since this discussion started, various sentences about Russian interference were added, tweaked and removed in the lead section paragraph about the election. There seems to be local consensus to say something but no consensus on what to say. I think we should come up with a reasonably-worded short and neutral mention, and then submit it to RfC to cement the consensus. Here are a few proposals that have been floated (not looking at the longer ones):

• Russia was accused of interfering in the election in support of his candidacy.
• Russia attempted to interfere in the election to support Trump.
• The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.
• Russia attempted to influence the election in favor of Trump.

There is a common structure to all these proposals, and I believe we can assemble an appropriate wording if we choose among the following Lego blocks:

• A1. Russia / A2. The Russian government / A3. Russian hackers
• B1. interfered in the election / B2. was accused of interfering / B3. attempted to interfere / B4. attempted to influence the election
• C1. in support of his candidacy / C2. to support Trump / C3. in favor of Trump / C4. (nothing)

What would be your preferred wording combination to accurately represent the facts? Also, which "Lego blocks" would you approve or reject? — JFG ^talk 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• A1/B2/C1C4: "Russia was accused of interfering in the election in support of his candidacy." I would also accept B3, B4 and C3. I would oppose A2 (no sufficient proof of this) and C4 (must make the connection with Trump or this becomes undue for his bio). — JFG ^talk 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Per MelanieN and Dervorguilla, I agree that C4 would be better than C1. If we start connecting the Russian intervention to Donald Trump in the lead, then we must go into lots of detail explaining that this collusion story started when he made sarcastic comments on Clinton's emails, that only some of his associates are currently under investigation and that he has contradicted himself several times by saying "I love Putin; we get along very well" and "I have never met Putin, and he better behave". On balance, silence is the wiser option. — JFG ^talk 16:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• A1/B3/C1C4. "Russia attempted to interfere in the election in support of his candidacy." Many other combinations are also acceptable. I would oppose B2 (the evidence has gone beyond accusation) and B1 (makes it sound like their interference was effective, which is not known and will never be known). I would oppose C4, per JFG. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. And I would also be OK with the word "intervene" which is what the article says now. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: based on Dervorguilla's comments below, I have decided I would be OK with C4 and in fact might prefer it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• A1/B3/C4: "Russia attempted to interfere in the election." Verifiable, accurate, concise. I think most people can make the connection to Trump! More significantly: nowhere does the original source (Homeland Security) suggest that Russia had no interest in helping Sanders too. And the Time story indicates that Putin likely wanted to embarrass Clinton more than he wanted to support Trump. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 08:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• A2/B2/C3: "The Russian government was accused of interfering in favor of Trump." Anything other than B2 would make a complete mockery of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Many editors here believe strongly that the Russian government interfered in the elections, but writing that personal belief into the article as fact, when it is not an established fact, would be beyond the pale. Wikipedia can't become a place where editors' personal political convictions trump maintaining a neutral encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I fear we've already crossed that threshold in American politics-related articles. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• A1/B1/C4: While there are plenty of sources tying the interference to Putin, A1 is safer as it includes more RS. I would go with B1 as it matches most RS. Interfered in does not mean effectively interfered. I think C1, C2 and C3 are all true. I’d just go with C4 for now as per the lyric “You say it best when you say nothing at all”. Objective3000 ( talk) 11:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• A2/B1/ C2 The Russian government interfered in the election to support Trump. A2: WP:RS's state that Putin directed the efforts. Clearly the Russian government. B1: The interfered in the election. How much they influenced the election and if they changed the outcome is unknown. C4: They were supporting Trump and didn't want to see Clinton as President. This is backed up by literally hundreds of WP:RSes. WP:NOTCENSOR and this is why it is important for this article. Casprings ( talk) 12:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Someone removed the sentence "Russia attempted to influence the election to favor Trump." from the lede, with the edit summary "Unsourced, blatant original research". As we know, there is plenty of sourcing, which is spelled out in a section of this article, as well as in a whole separate article. This is not original research and it has been in the article for a long time. I have restored it while we discuss the wording. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Here's how the Obama administration worded it. (Emphasis added.)

The U.S. Intelligence Community ... is confident that the Russian Government directed the ... compromises of e-mails from US persons and ... political organizations. The ... disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails ... are intended to interfere with the US election process. ^[1]

We could add this information to the body: Putin believed that Clinton had tried to interfere with the 2011 Russian presidential election. ^[1]

The leaks began three days before the Democratic convention; and Homeland Security has absolutely nothing to say about whether Russia was seeking (A) to promote both Sanders and Trump; (B) just to promote Trump; or (C) just to injure Clinton. I don't think the lead needs to say either. (Most RT propaganda stories published around that time supported Sanders and Stein, opposed Clinton, and opposed Trump.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 08:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I do think that Putin started this campaign because he hated Clinton. That hatred is well documented. He started it even before he knew Trump would be the nominee, and I think he (like everybody) thought Trump had no chance of actually winning. You make a good case for leaving out the "to help Trump" phrase. This biography is no place to go into all the details about Putin's motivation. I do think we should keep the wording "interfere with the election" or "intervene in the election", without going into details like hacking. We have established that it was more than just hacking. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Seeing no comments for 3 days and local agreement along the A1/B3/C4 variant, I have applied it temporarily to the article. However, this is a weak consensus among just 3 people from an informal survey, and I think we still need to submit the new Russia sentence to a well-advertised RfC in order to cement consensus. @ MelanieN, Dervorguilla, and Mandruss: How do you think we should proceed? — JFG ^talk 05:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I still support removing this sentence entirely, considering it is referenced in the Comey sentence later on. I would recommend people read Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as a far more concrete example of "Russia interfering in elections". If it is kept, this wording seems fine. Power~enwiki ( talk) 05:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to JFG: It does appear that RfC will be the only way to get the level of participation needed for something like this. If you frame it as up-or-down for A1/B3/C4, I think it's likely to be down as more than half will have some objection to some part of it. I think you'd have take the same Lego approach with the RfC and expect at least two rounds of !voting. As we know, establishing clear consensus, always difficult, is a b**** with more than two options. ― Mandruss  ☎ 06:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• We're leaving out the part of relevance to THIS article! There were three known reasons for the election interference mentioned in the best RS, and it is the third one which must be mentioned here. Here they are in the chronological order they happened:

1. Putin initially personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances;
2. He also wanted to undermine public faith in the US democratic process;
3. Only after it became evident that Trump had a chance, because Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, he then acted to help Trump win.

The third is the one we leave out, but it's the only one really relevant for this article, and it's significant enough that it must be mentioned. There is a good reason Trump hates that fact and doesn't want to see it in this article or elsewhere. He thinks he won without any help. Whether that's true or not, Putin did try to help him. That's what RS say. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That's pure speculation on your part, or on the part of bloggers. Have any of these people talked to Putin directly about this matter? Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, I don't speculate about such matters. I get my information from RS. You should check the sources at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It's pretty solidly documented that these were Putin's three objectives, and in that order. We can use the sources which are used there. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: It's useful to get your perspective here. You noted, "That's what RS say." Many do say that; others don't, though. In your opinion, which among all of these sources is the most authoritative? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article uses many sources. Here are a few good ones of relevance.

• "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (Cited widely in many RS)
• Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 US election - documents, Reuters
• Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault, The Washington Post

BullRangifer ( talk) 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Power~enwiki that this three-point history is flawed. As Power points out, we don't know Putin's thinking. More to the point, "hurt Hillary" and "help Trump" are not separate objectives; they are two sides of the same coin. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

But we don't care what Putin thinks. Our allegiance is to what RS say. They present it in that order because Trump was seen as an outsider at first, so the first objectives were more to hurt Clinton and sow discord and distrust. (That's why, at that stage, hurting Hillary and helping Trump were not "two sides of the same coin". There were many other GOP candidates, but only one Hillary, whom Putin hates and fears.) When Trump's chances became more obvious, the emphasis to help Trump became more clearly focused.

MelanieN, you edit at the "Russian interference" article, so you should know this. This isn't news or speculation at this point. Those three objectives are summarized in the very first paragraph there. Regardless of what's there, we must include what's relevant HERE, and it's only the third part which is of relevance, and yet it's that part we leave out. That makes no sense. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

We are talking here about the lede sentence - of a biography yet. That's not a place for laying out lots of context or explanation. The exposition of Putin's motives can go in the article text, and if it requires a lot of explanation, in a spinoff article. Putin interfered for many reasons. IMO "helping Trump" was a minor reason, in part because he (like everybody) undoubtedly assumed Hillary would win. Thoughtful sources have said that his actual goal was to make sure that Hillary's presidency would be difficult, controversial, ineffective - under domestic attack from the left (Sanders) and the right (Congress, still screaming about her email server and potential impeachment, and Trump, a loose cannon who could have made all kinds of trouble as a defeated candidate). I suspect Putin was as surprised as anyone when Trump won, but must have been happy, having cultivated Trump for years and seeded his inner circle with many pro-Russia people. Sorry, all that is off topic and potentially FORUM. The bottom line is, I initially agreed that we should say "to help Trump" in the lede, but I have become persuaded by this discussion that it is more complicated than that and we should leave it out. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm extremely familiar with the purpose of a lead , and of course we don't "lay out lots of context or explanation. The exposition" IS already in the article text, and the part that's relevant is also there. The only part that's relevant for the lead is that Putin did it partially to help Trump, yet we mention the interference without mentioning the part that's relevant. That makes no sense

User:JFG should revert their change (and maybe use my suggested bolded wording below), because that part is the only part that should stay. We shouldn't just leave the vague "Russia attempted to interfere in the election." We should mention the part of "why" which is relevant for this article:

• "Russia attempted to interfere in the election, partially because Putin favored Trump over Clinton."

The details and sources are in this section: #Russian interference in election. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 18:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, well, you have made your point, repeatedly and strongly. And you have cited three sources, above. Discussing the sources: I can't find where the Intelligence Community analysis supports your thesis and I'm not going to read through 25 pages to find it; could you pull out a quote? In the Reuters article I find this: "A second institute document, drafted in October and distributed in the same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral system’s legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency, the seven officials said." That's pretty much my point, not yours. The Obama's Secret article says Putin's goals were "to defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump" and "Putin was working to elect Trump." That's some support for the three-point history.

JFG added what he did because three people had supported it and at that point nobody had opposed. You haven't convinced me to add your proposed language. Let's ask the other people who felt that "supporting Trump" should not be in the sentence. We do have to respect consensus here. Pinging @ JFG, Dervorguilla, and Power~enwiki: -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I fear that my three point summary will lead us astray from what's important here, which is only the third point. Let's stick to that in further discussion. Okay?

We need to mention the interference in relation to Putin's favoring Trump over Clinton. That's the part that's relevant for this article. That's my main point. Leaving out mention of that in the lead makes no sense. There are many very RS which mention that Putin worked toward getting Trump elected, usually in the context of his dislike of Clinton. (Other sources mention it in the context of his wanting a candidate whom he could control by blackmail and shared POV. I don't think we should go there.) -- BullRangifer ( talk) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: Your point here is that it "makes no sense" to say in the lead that ([1] and [2]) "Russia attempted to interfere in the election" without also saying that ([3]) it "favored Trump over Clinton". But [3] is a half-truth -- an equivocation. The whole truth is that Russia favored both Trump and Sanders over Clinton. Russia attempted to interfere in the election because it favored Sanders over Clinton. It continued attempting to interfere because it also -- to a lesser degree -- favored Trump over Clinton. Had Sanders won, Russia would have continued attempting to interfere because it favored Sanders over Trump. (It was in Russia's interests to do so: Sanders was advocating for less military spending, not more.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say that all your mention of Sanders is unsourced speculation. We do know that the Russians targeted Bernie Bros to draw their votes away from Clinton, and it worked very well. There is no evidence, RS, or intelligence assessments which indicate that the Russians favored Sanders over Trump. They have been cultivating Trump for years, seem to have evidence they can use to blackmail him, and they have a common interest which Trump fully supports, even without blackmail, and that is he wants to deescalate any tensions because they want to make money together.

So no, the Sanders bit doesn't work because all RS point back to the fact that Putin hates and fears Clinton and tried to harm her chances, and as soon as it looked like Trump could win, all Russian efforts were focused on getting him in the White House. All the hacking, fake news, collusion with the GOP leadership, stealing of voter data and turning it over to the GOP (where it was used successfully in at least two state elections), etc. focused on hurting her, helping all the GOP's campaigns, and getting Trump to be their friend in the WH. That's the narrative supported by RS. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 14:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I examine anywhere from 30-80 reports in RS on these subjects every day, and I haven't encountered this Sanders theory of yours. If you have any RS which describe it, I'd love to read about it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: Your analysis is somewhat flawed because you are speaking way too heavily in the realm of speculation and using too many absolutes. I heavily favor the viewpoint of Dervorguilla and advise you to carefully weigh his even-keeled rebuttal, which I agree with. We must stick to what the RS say. 67.233.35.234 ( talk) 07:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I use what RS say. Sanders does not figure in the equation, except as a means to draw voters away from Clinton, a ploy which worked very well. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 14:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• @ Thucydides411: This comment of yours - Many editors here believe strongly that the Russian government interfered in the elections, but writing that personal belief into the article as fact, when it is not an established fact, would be beyond the pale. Wikipedia can't become a place where editors' personal political convictions trump maintaining a neutral encyclopedia. - was out of line. You know nothing about the individual political beliefs of people posting here. Someone could equally well claim that your insistence that the Russian interference has not been established is a matter of personal belief, but that would also be out of line. Let's just look at the sources. Editors here have pointed, over and over, to evidence that the Russians interfered. That evidence includes multiple reports from well-informed government sources, and testimony under oath by someone in a position to know the facts of the matter. You assert that the question is so unsettled that to state it here would be POV. Do you have reliable sources, aside from your assertion, that there is still serious doubt about this? -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@ MelanieN: It's clear that NPOV has gone straight out of the window here. Assumptions of good faith become really difficult to maintain when there's such a clear bent, on issue after issue, coming from the same group of editors. Over at the Russian interference article, almost every single sentence that in any way might imply doubt about the idea that Russia interfered in the election has been removed, with the flimsiest of reasons. The entire article has been edited down to portray views coming from US spy agencies.

We've discussed sources ad infinitum over at the Russian Interference article. Nothing comes of those discussions, because it's clear who's going to support what from the outset. You're now (again) asserting that US spy agencies are reliable sources for the claim that Russia interfered. I think that if that argument stands, Wikipedia is nothing but a mouthpiece for the CIA and FBI. We might as well let them write the articles for us. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 20:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, User:Thucydides411, I asked for Reliable Sources saying that the claim of interference is in doubt. Instead, I got 1) you don't trust the CIA (or presumably leaks from anywhere in the government) and 2) you believe that editors here are biased - whether pro-government, or pro-Trump, or anti-Trump, or what, isn't clear. I don't really see any basis for discussion here. Although this does lead me to ask: since you reject the evidence offered so far, what WOULD you regard as evidence or proof that the Russians did attempt to interfere? Is there any type of evidence you would accept, short of a tweet from Putin saying "Of course I did it!"? -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@ MelanieN: You're very well aware of the sources, because we've discussed them several times, at length, over at Allegations of Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Presidential Election. More importantly, you're asking me to prove a negative. You're citing unreliable political actors, the CIA and FBI, who make a particular claim about a country they consider an adversary, and then asking me to quote sources that say those unreliable sources are incorrect. That's not the way we work here on Wikipedia. You need to show that reliable sources generally consider Russian interference to be an established fact. Quoting the views of your spy agency of choice (US spy agencies, of course, but not Russian spy agencies) doesn't cut it.

If "Russian interference" were an uncontroversial fact that were generally viewed as true by reliable sources, then there wouldn't be any question of including a factual statement in this article. You're trying to push a very controversial view, which is based almost entirely on the say-so of a particular government's spy agencies, into a whole number of articles across Wikipedia. That's entirely inappropriate.- Thucydides411 ( talk) 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Thucydides411: "US spy agencies" (no matter how biased) are mainstream secondary RS, and we can continue citing them. Full Disclosure of Interests: Neither I nor any member of my immediate family is working for "the CIA [or] FBI" or any other entity cited in this article, nor for any competing spy agency or entity... -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 22:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Dervorguilla: Biased secondary (or primary) sources, like US spy agencies, are not reliable sources, except for statements of their own opinion. They are not reliable sources for statements of what the Russian government did. We can cite their opinions on alleged Russian interference, but to treat something as a fact, because the CIA says it's a fact, is something that Wikipedia cannot do. If someone had told me, a year ago, that longtime Wikipedians would start arguing that the CIA is a reliable source, I wouldn't have believed it. How far we've come. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: You've added 1,040 words in the last 33 hours, but you haven't bothered to respond to MelanieN's comment: "I can't find where the Intelligence Community analysis supports your thesis ...; could you pull out a quote? In the Reuters article I find this: "[text]". That's pretty much my point, not yours". She trusted what you told us, but she wasn't able to verify it. Had we published your false citations as supporting your proposed statement, it's possible the subject would have responded by rebranding us as "The FAKE Encyclopedia". -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I did respond to Melanie with this comment: "I fear that my three point summary will lead us astray from what's important here, which is only the third point. Let's stick to that in further discussion. Okay?" That's where we are. We are not going back to discussing the three points. Yes, I could provide the RS to back them up, but that distracts from the relevant point here, which is what's relevant to this article...the interference as related to Trump.

I never did propose publishing those three points (and would not do so for the lead or this article), nor were my comments or references "false citations". (That's a nasty personal attack, so please strike it to show that you AGF. We have all been quite civil and I'd like to keep it that way.

The Russian interference article does contain the sources for all three points, as I have mentioned, and also multiple RS for the third point. Unfortunately I'm going to be traveling so might not be editing for a while. If I get a chance, I might find those sources if no one tries to do so. Just look for RS which mention how Putin favored Trump. There are many.

As for Trump labeling Wikipedia "The FAKE Encyclopedia", he's probably already done so, and if he discovers any content here which makes him look bad, not matter how true and properly sourced, he will do so, since his definition of "fake" is if a truth makes him look bad, not whether it is truly fake or false. He'd describe his own mirror as a "fake mirror".... -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: I think you may have significantly misrepresented our exchange. No one -- no one -- is asking you to "provide the RS to back them up". You have already provided two respected RS that back them up. You've told us they do. MelanieN and I are just asking you to show us a supporting quote from each source. That's all we're asking. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah! I must have misunderstood you (not "misrepresented"). To me they are pretty much the same thing. (If I provide a source for something, that "something" would contain the wording.) It looks like User:Casprings has already beaten me to it. Do you want more sources/quotes? Here are some more:

1. "Russian President Vladimir Putin supervised his intelligence agencies' hacking of the U.S. presidential election and turned it from a general attempt to discredit American democracy to an effort to help Donald Trump, three U.S. officials said on Thursday." ^[1]
2. "C.I.A. Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed." (This article reveals when the differences of opinion between the CIA and FBI were resolved and they began to agree that the Russian interference was ALSO designed to help Trump.) ^[2]
3. This Guardian article addresses a doubt often raised by User:Thucydides411 [16] and User:JFG, who both parrot Putin's and Trump's view, a view found only in unreliable sources like Breitbart, Infowars, RT, and Sputnick (they don't present RS with this view, so we must reject it), which is that only American intelligence agencies (which they consider unreliable sources) confirm that Russia did anything wrong. The article states that before American agencies knew anything or got involved, Brennan received evidence from British and other foreign agencies that Russia might be trying to "help" Trump win the U.S. election. After that, American agencies got involved and confirmed that info. Scan the article for "help" and you'll find MANY quotes you can use. ^[3]
4. It was later revealed that the CIA had obtained intelligence from "sources inside the Russian government" which stated that Putin gave direct orders to disparage Clinton and help Trump. ^[4]

Those sources should help. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This conversation is hard to follow, but is he or she supposed to be backing up that Russia favored Trump? If so, that is too easy.

• From the US Government report: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/ODNI_Statement_on_Declassified_Intelligence_Community_Assessment_of_Russian_Activities_and_Intentions_in_Recent_U.S._Elections.pdf

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

• From The NYTIMES: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hacking-election-intelligence.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Frussian-election-hacking&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=41&pgtype=collection

The election intervention to damage Hillary Clinton and lift Donald J. Trump was the latest fusillade in a campaign that has gone on under the radar for years.

• Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/russia-hacking-timeline/?utm_term=.3265e3d9910f

Intelligence agencies knew as early as 2015 that the Russians had penetrated the systems of the Democratic National Committee, but it wasn’t until the election cycle hit full force that many of the leaks began to surface. Throughout the summer months, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continued to reject the intelligence on Russia’s involvement, while Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was dogged by an email scandal that resurfaced time and time again.

( ←) @ Casprings: I think you may have significantly misunderstood the conversation. No one was "supposed to be backing up" (the half-truth) "that Russia favored Trump".

Also, the government report you're citing says that Russia had not favored Trump at first. Rather, it developed a clear preference for him (around June 2016). In March 2016 it would likely have had a preference for Clinton's other adversary. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: The first source you gave us says:

[CIA, FBI, and NSA] assess with high confidence that

[1] Putin ordered an influence campaign ... the [three] consistent goals of which were to ... [1.3] harm Clinton's electability and potential presidency;

[2] Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for Trump;

[3] when it appeared to Moscow that Clinton was likely to win the election, its influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.

So it's misleading to say that "only after it became evident that Trump had a chance, ... Putin acted to help him win".

Based on the first two sources you gave us, Putin undertook his influence campaign in March 2016. At that time, he "aspired to" (wanted to) harm Clinton's electability and help Sanders -- for whom he had a clear preference over Clinton or Trump. When it appeared that Sanders was unlikely to win, he developed a clear preference for Trump over Clinton and aspired to help Trump. By October 2016, he had come to believe that Trump had no significant chance of winning. He no longer aspired to (fruitlessly) help Trump. He just aspired to undermine Clinton's expected presidency. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 20:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any sources which propose that Putin wanted to help Sanders, other than for the purpose of drawing votes away from Clinton. There are sources which say that. Regardless, Sanders is not the subject here.

It's true that Putin did start to help Trump and then changed tactics when it appeared that Clinton really was going to win, BUT he returned to helping Trump when Trump won the GOP nomination. He had been grooming Trump for at least five years, they shared many POV and financial entanglements, Trump was indebted to him, many members of the Trump campaign were in constant contact with Putin and his people, and Putin definitely wanted Trump to beat Clinton. Therefore this is not completely true: "He no longer aspired to (fruitlessly) help Trump. He just aspired to undermine Clinton's expected presidency." All the intelligence and RS indicate that the hacking, fake news, etc. was carried on to harm Clinton and help Trump, right down to hacking voter databases. We just don't have evidence of changing any votes in voting machines, so that's a moot point. The entire campaign, continuing on until this very day (the Russian military has publicly said that their cyberwarfare is unending and takes no pauses), was influenced by a fake news campaign which denigrated Clinton with false stories and praised and boosted Trump. That continues, even though Trump was elected.

While what happened before Putin started helping Trump is interesting, it's actually irrelevant to this discussion. The point is made in multiple RS that Putin DID try to help Trump (regardless of whenever time period he might have temporarily lessened such efforts). It makes no difference. When it "appeared that Clinton was likely to win" (your #2), Putin didn't forget or give up on his preference for Trump, but was even more motivated to help Trump because he was the only one who could beat Clinton. The fake news campaign did not stop.

All we need to add is "Russia attempted to interfere in the election, partially because Putin favored Trump over Clinton." It is an undeniable fact that "Putin favored Trump over Clinton." That's all we need to add and then we can get on to other things. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: Neither you nor me nor the intelligence agencies nor the journalists can read Putin's mind, so we cannot say that It is an undeniable fact that "Putin favored Trump over Clinton.". Interestingly, when asked this question by Russian press in October 2016, he said in essence "We have no reason to prefer one candidate or the other. Sure, Trump says he wants to improve relations with Russia while Clinton is taking an aggressive stance, but we do not know what the elected president will really do. Trump may not follow up on his words, and Clinton may soften her position when in office." See [17]. In another, more recent interview, he said "U.S. Presidents come and go but policies remain the same." — JFG ^talk 08:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

RS say that Putin tried to help Trump win because he preferred Trump over Clinton. That's what we report. As far as reading Putin's mind, no, we can't do that, but intelligence agencies have recorded what he has said, including on these issues, so what's in his mind is known, to some degree.

You do make me realize that my proposal isn't complete because the motive for the interference (his preference) isn't the most essential thing to mention. It's just the motive. That Putin sought to help Trump win is the important thing to mention, so here's a better proposal:

• "Russia attempted to interfere in the election, partially to help Trump win because Putin favored Trump over Clinton." The ending about motivation is not essential for the lead.

There were several reasons for the interference, but one of them was to help Trump win, and Putin has been very satisfied with his success. The whole Russian nation has celebrated the successful operation. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You write: intelligence agencies have recorded what he has said. This is an incorrect inference that is not reported by RS, as far as I know. What the CIA says (and what mainstream journalists have reported) is that some unspecified intelligence sources within the Kremlin have been recorded talking about Putin's motives and alleged direct orders. I have never seen a source claiming that Putin himself was recorded; I'd be delighted to see that, if it exists. Conversely, there are several unambiguous recordings of Putin detailing his reasoning about the US election, e.g. in the interview I paraphrased above. Sure, we can't trust him but we can report what he publicly said and refrain from second-guessing his motives. — JFG ^talk 15:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@ JFG: Sometimes, even when an editor acts in good faith, his contributions are nonetheless disruptive and time-wasting. Some editors hold personal opinions so strongly that they can't edit neutrally and collaboratively with other editors. If they post opinions without practical implications for the article, we should just leave them alone (as long as they limit those contributions to Talk). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Dervorguilla: Those are certainly wise admonitions, but I can't really parse whether you are talking to me, to someone else, or to me about someone else. Yes, we should all leave personal opinions at the door and focus on improving article contents. I'm waiting for BullRangifer's answer on covert Putin recordings. — JFG ^talk 03:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

( ←)

@ JFG: Maybe BullRangifer is right about Putin. Maybe the agencies have "recorded what he has said" about Trump. Or maybe they haven't. The answer has no practical effect on the article, so we can just leave that issue alone.

Some of the editor's other good-faith contributions do have significant implications for the article, though. Like this one:

"BUT ... he had been grooming Trump for at least five years, they shared many ... financial entanglements, Trump was indebted to him" (and so forth).

Maybe Trump really was in financial debt to Putin (or vice versa). That would affect the article. So we may have to budget our editing time to discuss another 350+ word argument. And that argument may again misrepresent what one of us has said, like this one did: "It's true that Putin did start to help Trump and then changed tactics..." Here the contributor is falsely citing his own claim to me. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 14:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)