Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

RfC: Assange denial

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

---

Should Julian Assange's assertion that the source of DNC leaks was not Russian be included in the lead section, just after the ODNI's assertion that it was? — JFG ^talk 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A section of the lead says:

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks.

We suggest to add:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has stated that Russia was not the source of the documents.

Both assertions are sourced to several RS and are covered in the body text of the article. Discussion on the talk page has not resulted in consensus, therefore an RfC is appropriate. — JFG ^talk 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Who's "we"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Answered below. — JFG talk 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Alright, I'll take your word for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Trust but Verify" -- [1] SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: WP:YOUTUBE WP:HUMOR WP:ISNOT a WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY SOURCE, nor is it WP:DUE. Please WP:READ WP:WEIGHT, WP:LINKFARM, WP:V, WP:BALASP and WP:PROMOTIONAL . Also WP:REFRAIN from casting WP:ASPERSIONS and making WP:DISRUPTIVE comments. WP:FOCUS on WP:CONTENT. Consider this fair WP:WARNING. WP:THANK YOU Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please state your support or oppose stance with a brief rationale here.

• Oppose. I came here from the RfC notice. It seems to me to be WP:UNDUE to put that in the lead, because it in effect gives equal weight to Assange's claim and to the conclusions of the multiple agencies. It's entirely appropriate for the main text, with more context, but not worth an un-contextualized sentence in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not the conclusion of 17 agencies, it's a conclusion of a figurehead at the top of those 17 agencies. We have no idea what the rank and file in those 17 agencies belive, or even whether they even conducted their own independent investigations. Most likely not, since it would be way beyond the scope of the National Geospatial Intelligence agency or the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency.Jwray (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Assange is an interested party and it's not appropriate to suggest an equivalence between the National Intelligence Assessment and Assange's denial (regardless of the facts, one can expect the accused to deny the act). Also, it's not clear he would even know who did the hack. All he knows is who gave him the data. He doesn't claim that he did it all himself from the Ecuadoran Embassy. This cannot go in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Of course it should. I don't know why we're even debating this. Assange is central to this story (he heads Wikileaks, which released the emails), and his statement that Russia wasn't the source received wide coverage. We shouldn't be worrying about whether Assange's statement will detract from the statements of US intelligence agencies. That's a purely political consideration (do I want US intelligence agencies to look good or bad?), and it has no place in determining what goes into the article. What determines what goes into the article is notability, balance and sourcing. There's really no debate on those questions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tryptofish and my previous comment above. This is clearly undue for lede. Can be mentioned in the body of the page.My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support It is a long-standing principle in Wikipedia articles that when subjects are accused of crimes or other misleads that we report if they have denied them. That does not mean that we are giving parity to their claims. "People accused of crime" says, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." The least we can do is to mention they denied it. The fact that there is a political dimension should not matter. TFD (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"court of law"...(unless his name is Clapper) SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support look, it's just about due WP:WEIGHT -- and since the coverage saying Russia is about as prominent and common as the coverage of Assange says no, so it's put both in or put neither in. By simplistic Google count 'dnc leaks russia' is 800K hits and 'dnc leaks assange' is 560K hits -- so it seems only WP:DUE to put the denial alongside the charge and give both their attribution. Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: This is not about whether to include it in the article, just whether to put it in the lede. And while we have credible sources that tell us the hacks originated in Russia, the opinion of Assange as to their origin is sheer speculation. How would Assange know where they came from? Do you think the original hackers had any reason to trust him with the secret? These things are acquired via intermediaries. Assange knows no more than any other layman, and he's in the habit, per RS, of making self-serving statements of nonsense as if they were fact. SPECIFICO talk 04:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - WP:WEIGHT is fairly clear on if the coverage is equal then the article coverage should be equal. (Include all parts "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." ) Seems if dnc wikileaks Russian is big enough to be in the lead then the roughly equally common mention of Assange denial should be roughly equal in the article. Just follow the cites. We should try to give article prominence as they do -- as best we can, anyway. Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There's more to it than counting googlies -- otherwise we could just write software that would cull WP from the internet. "Trump combover" gets 800,000 googles, but we don't put that in. SPECIFICO talk 04:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict) The coverage about Assange's statement is not as prominent and not as common as the coverage about "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections". Rather coverage in WP:RS about Russian interference in US elections overwhelmingly indicates that his statement is at best inaccurate and most likely misleading; because it has no basis in fact. There is also plenty of RS to show that he had a political agenda when making this statement - another indication that the veracity of this statement is suspect. I don't mind covering this is in the article, but it would seriously mislead readers about the WEIGHT of this statement if it was placed in the lede (per Tryptofish above). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose.Should certainly not be in the lead as proposed because it fundamentally lacks context and appears to give equal standing to a bare, unsupported denial. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. The Washington Post Fact Checker did an in-depth analysis of "Assange's claim that there was no Russian involvement in WikiLeaks emails" and found, noting that Assange provided no evidence for his claim: "The facts we know contradict Assange’s assurance, and the situation is much too complex for him to make such a sweeping statement...We award Assange Three Pinocchios for his distortion of the facts." Or take Pulitzer Prize-winning author Barton Gellman's point: "Wikileaks is engineered for mutual anonymity. Even if source IDs himself, how could WL know he isn’t laundering RU docs"? We cannot present Assange's statement in the lead without bringing this context to bear. Neutrality^talk 05:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support:The relentless drive to purge the article of material that hasn't been approved by the CIA continues apace. This has been going on for months. Wikileaks, Russia, US authorities: 3 major actors involved. WP:DUE to mention claims of each in the lead. Assange claims that he did not get the leaks from the Russians, which may be true even if the latter were the hackers. Guccisamsclub (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Neutrality above. In the text, of course. But not in the lede - it's just one sentence out of one big article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: The argument that Assange has provided no proof in his denial is ironic in an article premised upon a claim for which no proof has been provided. Those who opposed "alleged" in the article title I hope will practice consistency and demand we repeat his counter-claim as fact. But the truth of the thing is irrelevant – if we paint someone as a stooge or conspirator in a plot they deny we must include their denial, prominently. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) Actually, there is plenty of proof that Russian hacking was intended to influence 2016 U.S.elections, as demonstrated by plethora of reliable sources in the main-space of this article, per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR --- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a plethora of sources repeating ad libitum what the US intelligence agencies have stated, without providing solid proof other than "trust us, it's classified". Quantity of coverage for this aspect of the story doesn't make educated counterpoints less notable, particularly coming from a pivotal actor in the story. — JFG ^talk 09:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't agree it is ad libitum. It seems the sources approach the subject from many different angles, as evinced by the many sections in this article with a surprisingly large amount of WP:RS support. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Nobody knows whether Assange is telling the truth but Wikipedia policy requires WP:Verifiability, not truth. Assange's comments on the origin of the leaks are eminently DUE and notable because he has been questioned repeatedly by the press and gradually became more precise in his denial of Russian connections, making a dent in WikiLeaks' usual practice of neither confirming nor denying any reports on the identity of their sources. Besides, there is a BLP aspect to the accusations levied against Assange and WikiLeaks by the US Intelligence community and some politicians: his denial must be included next to the accusations, regardless of whether some Wikipedia editors believe him to be credible or not. — JFG ^talk 08:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Neutrality and others. I'm amused that some editors are pulling the WP:BLP card. Wikileaks is not a living person, in case that is not obvious.- MrX 11:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Assange is the accused, thus yes we should have his version of the story.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - He is notable and credible in relation to the subject. Covered by many RS and given he is a central figure in the whole incident his statements are very DUE. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

In two last "support" statements people argue that opinion by Assange should be included in the page. Yes, sure, and it is already included. It only should not be included in lede - per Neutrality and others above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

As he should be, but I am saying its DUE that he be in the lead. Sorry for the confusion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You tell: Assange is "a central figure in the whole incident". What incident are you talking about? This page describes a large number of different events, and Assange is relevant to only one small subsection of this page, Wikileaks. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead states: "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks". Yeah, that part. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it already tells about Wikileaks! Nothing else should be said about Wikileaks in Intro because it appears in only one small sub-section on the page, and we simply summarize content proportionately to its appearance in the body of the page. Actually, I am not entirely opposed to mentioning Wikileaks second time in the end of the paragraph: The Russian government and Wikileaks repeatedly denied they had any involvement in the DNC hacks or leaks. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? Lets see what it actually "tells": The Russian government repeatedly denied it had any involvement in the DNC hacks or leaks. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I am telling it might be OK, in my opinion, to modify this phrase by adding "and Wikileaks". My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You're saying this why? The only difference between the RfC proposal and yours is that the latter is factually incorrect and unsourced. Let's get real. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The opinion of Mr. Assange is not equivalent to that of 17 agencies. Support this in the article only, not the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(Moved thread into #17 agencies section below.) — JFG ^talk 06:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Is WP:UNDUE based on the amount of coverage given his denial from WP:RS. Moreover, there is good reason for this lack of coverage. 1. It is likely that the Russian's would have been given the emails by a third party. I am sure the way he got them wasn't someone directly connected to the Russian government. However, it isn't a creditable denial and he was never asked if he thought Russia was originally behind the hacking. 2. He clearly has an agenda. All that said, we should be driven by the WP:RS and how much coverage they provided. It is therefore WP:UNDUE. ---Casprings (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2017 --- ((I fixed the signature for Casprings, for this Ivote, per edit history - see diff here ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC).))

Besides all the OR listed, there is quite a lot of WP:RS coverage of his statement and the impact of it. It is also a creditable denial that Wikileaks did not receive the documents from the Russian government. Questions he was not asked are irrelevant. So since it received substantial coverage from RS and he is a key figure in the scandal there is no doubt his assertion is WP:DUE for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in the lead, per WP:DUE. Further, the fact that these files were posted on Wikileaks and not some other random website, document dump, or newspaper is not of central importance to the subject matter. The only thing that matters is that the content was published. If Assange must have a right of reply, then we can exclude any mention of Wikileaks in the lead. If this is a distraction, let's get rid of it. Geogene (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Geogene per their above comment and their edit history comment "...we can remove Wikileaks from the Lead entirely. It doesn't really matter whose website the leaked documents were leaked to. The point is that they got out." Geogne makes a really good point here by presenting a middle ground. (In other words), leaving Wikileaks out seems to be a good idea, because this not "of central importance." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of unsupported opinion in the lead. There’s a whole slew of interviews like this one cited in the NY Times where Assange was saying that "no one knows who our source is". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Is WP:UNDUE based on the amount of coverage given to his denial in WP:RS. Also point out that Assange is not in any meaningful sense 'the accused', since HE is certainly not the source, and may well have no idea who original source was. Pincrete (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The vast bulk of this article is about material that was leaked by Wikileaks, and supposedly given to Wikileaks by "Russia." Assange, Wikileaks' founder, states that Russia wasn't the source of the material. Assange's statement has been abundantly documented in high quality sources, and efforts to remove his statement are part of a longstanding campaign to remove all but U.S. intelligence agency statements from the lead. -Darouet (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal isn't neutral because it places Assange on par with a large number of much more reliable sources. Although it could be reworded to make this disparity clear, e.g., "Although Assange has claimed,..." the lead is already quite long and doesn't have room for that level of detail. Save for the body of the article. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Assange's denial has been reported very widely by an extraordinary number of reliable sources. A 6 word sentence acknowledging this is not WP:UNDUE. People are just using WP:UNDUE as an excuse for POV-pushing by suppressing well sourced information that conflicts with Clapper's assessment.Jwray (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per those above citing WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Definitely notable for the body of article but presenting in lede assigns undue weight to what is at this point an assertion supported in a minority of reliable sources. WP:STICKTOSOURCE -- RYPJack(talk) 04:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly WP:UNDUE. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Yes, certainly. This article is about documents leaked through Wikileaks, who are mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead, so Wikileaks is clearly relevant - this isn't an irrelevant third party. The first three paragraphs of the article contain 259 words explaining the Intelligence Community's position; it is nowhere near undue prominence to add 15 words mentioning that one of the major actors involved has disputed this position. TSP (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Assange is one person who claims to have secret, stolen info, and appears to have multiple axes on a grinding wheel. I can see a qualified mention in the text. I don’t see this at the top. The lead is too long as it is. This should be the first text to go. WP:UNDUE Objective3000 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Assange denial discussion

Please move any longer arguments on the merits of inclusion or exclusion here.

@JFG: Who is "we" ? SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Question for OP -- Wherever he got the material he claims is hacked DNC emails, how would Assange necessarily know who actually did the hacking and whether the stuff was authentic/unadulterated? SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There's really no point in us speculating on what Assange may or may not know. He's a central figure in the publication of the emails, and he made statements about the source of the leaks that received wide coverage. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It goes in the article, just not the lede. Do you know who is "we" ?? JFG seems to be on respite. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's important enough to go in the lede. Our speculation about what Assange actually knows, or about how putting his statements next to those of US intelligence officials might cause readers to perceive US intelligence agencies really has nothing to do with whether this should be in the lede or not. I don't even see why we're debating this. It just seems so obvious that Assange's statement about the source of the hacking is one of the most notable elements of this subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"it's obvious" is not an effective form of discussion. That's obvious. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting this lede would be UNDUE. Although his statement garnered RS, there is also RS to support he had a political agenda for making this statement. This indicates that he is being less than truthful. Also, he is not a cybersecurity expert and not an espionage expert on par with reputable cybersecurity firms. Anyway, the RS pertaining to this topic (generally or specifically) overwhelmingly indicates that his statement is not accurate and probably misleading, and that it is just a POV statement. It is little more than a guy on the corner telling me the same. He is hardly remarkable, other than Wikileaks is his progeny. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

What does it matter if Assange had a political agenda, or if his statement was false (and I don't agree that that's obvious)? It's a widely covered statement by a figure at the center of this issue. You guys keep making arguments about why you don't believe Assange, or why you think that putting Assange's statement in the lede will make US intelligence seem less credible, or about how you think Assange is politically motivated. Those would all be fair points to make on a political discussion board, but not when considering what to include in a Wikipedia article. The question here is whether Assange's statement is notable enough to go in the lede, and it clearly is notable enough. The endless political arguments here get really tiring, because they have nothing to do with article quality, and everything to do with pushing a certain point of view in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that the test? If so and it can be shown that those alleging Russian involvement may also have political agendas should we exclude claims of Russian involvement from the lede as well? Nonsense. I agree with Thucydides411: these conversations are off-topic and irrelevant. Repeated, they become disruptive. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Who's "we"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about disruptive editing – Politrukki (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think someone or some editors are being disruptive then I suggest taking this complaint to the appropriate venue. This is not about talk page suppression, and I don't recognize your authority to suppress talk page comments. Also, I think accusations of disruption are in themselves disruptive. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Umm, Steve, are you addressing me? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @Steve Quinn: please refrain from calling others disruptive after you recently launched three unproductive AE cases in short succession against editors who happened to disagree with you about the contents of this article. — JFG talk 09:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Who's "we"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Per Thucydides411 - who at least has something salient to offer to the conversation, in contrast to a lecture by J.J.L. Assange is not at the center of this issue. The RS supporting Russian interference of the 2016 election and its ancillary tributaries (figure of speech), exceedingly surpasses Assange's several worded statement asserting Russia did not do the deed. He is a lone voice in the wilderness that happened to receive modest coverage.

It is a case of UNDUE and WEIGHT. Assange is expressing a marginal and fringe view, which is overwhelmingly countered by mainstream RS. Nuetrality (above) has pretty much demolished the argument that Assange has any sort of parity with mainstream coverage that counters his (Assange's) view. Per UNDUE:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views...Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view...To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute

Therefore, Assange should not be in the lede. As Wikipedia strives for accuracy, it is important to point out whether or not Assange is credible or not, according to mainstream sources. Not an editor's opinion. So perhaps my comments were taken out of context. I was referring to how main stream sources attribute Assange's comments. And this matters, because Wikipedia strives for accuracy per WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Also, since his is a minority opinion or view, it does not deserve parity or a place in the lede.

As an aside, Assange is not credible, and he was motivated by a political agenda. His opinion doesn't count for much. OH no, I did it again, is J.J.L going to take me to ANI or AE? Assange might be dissembling too, maybe - oops! --- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what WP editors think about Assange's credibility, but as it happens, Assange and WikiLeaks have a pretty long track record of publishing leaked documents that were proven to be authentic and truthful, irrespective of the political consequences involved: Cablegate, Iraq War Logs, Stratfor emails, TPP draft, etc. Uncomfortable? Certainly. Partisan? Probably. Credible? Definitely. — JFG ^talk 10:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• JFG I hope you can find this comment :>). Sincerely, I am not trying to express a personal opinion about Assange. That last comment, after I wrote "As an aside..." was probably not a good idea because I was being a little flippant. Let us just stay with my comments pertaining to what I think reliable sources say. And you make a good point - that Assange did at one time provide a service to the world without presenting a political agenda - by publishing leaked documents. Wikileaks is still providing that service - and it is baffling why Assange picked sides during our 2016 president election. In any case, picking sides or not, I try to speak through what I see reliable sources saying, nothing more - and it is the same for any Wikipedia pages I edit. Hopefully this makes sense. And this doesn't mean other opinions should not exist. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

• (Redacted) --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about disruptive editing – Politrukki (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, who in the heck is "we"? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Let me echo that (again) - who's we JFG? The Delian League or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "We" in my RfC statement refers to the editor(s) who originally placed Assange's denial in the lead (no idea who this might be) and those who argued for its reinsertion (I'm part of them, so that's "we" not "I"). I don't understand why you all are so hung up on this question – WP:There is no cabal. — JFG talk 09:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @JFG:Sorry, but that response makes no sense, and I don't see how it could be considered credible by anyone who examines it. You wrote "We suggest". Now, that doesn't just say that you expect others will agree with you. That is plain English for a joint statement. So please give a more complete explanation. Who do you speak for when you say "we suggest"? How do you know what others suggest? Which others? WP editors don't talk like that when posting RfC's, so it's real weird. It's reasonable to get to the bottom of it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) There's nothing more to it than what I wrote here. Some people will agree with the suggestion, some will disagree, that much is already apparent in the first batch of responses to the RfC, an exact 7-7 split so far. — JFG talk 14:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC) C'mon Champ. That's the old turkey trot. Who did you know would agree with it? Who is "we"? Deflection is a tough bit on WP because everyone's focused on words and facts. Could you show us a couple other RfC's where the proposer is speaking for a group of We's? Cause what you "wrote here" looks pretty, um, problematic. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Please stop casting aspersions. — JFG talk 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Aspersions" would be unfounded. Here what "we" have is you slipping and wording the RfC in a way which strongly suggests you're coordinating with others off wiki.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Enough hounding of JFG, already. Can we stay on subject? If not, someone might mention the Eastern European Mailing List, and then Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes will get upset. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC) So you guys aren't coordinating off wiki? Reason I ask, is because I have some advice for you: don't do it. Nice attempt at deflection though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @Thucydides411: Dang, golly whiz. This gets curiouser and curiouser. This time it's Thucydides. How many "we's" are making that personal attack? 2? 3? 4? 5-1/2? Ask Mr. Ernie whether that's a smart move. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC) As a matter of principle, I do not communicate off-wiki with anyone. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? — JFG talk 17:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - BLP is a Wikipedia policy., not a US Intelligence policy or a Congressional policy. Also, it is not Wikipedia editor's saying he is not credible. What is being said is reliable sources are reporting the reliability Assange's statement to determine whether it lacks credibility. Steve Quinn (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Assange's statement does not need to not be credible. Its entirely possible that Wikileaks source for the info was not in fact Russia, which as far as I can see is all Assange has asserted. This is not contradictory to Russia arranging for the info to be hacked and passed on to Wikileaks by a third party. Assange going 'We didnt get this from Russia' can be 100% true in that situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead states that Russia leaked the data to Wikileaks, according to US intel. This implicates Assange in a relationship with Russian spies. So Assange says Wikileaks did not get the material from Russia. Either you present both claims in the lede, or you present none. This is stupid simple. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that Assange has a relationship with Russian spies. Or that Assange even knows the ultimate origin of the content in question. Geogene (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Legal persons and groups" says, "when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." Furthermore, Assange is an expert on the leaking of documents. TFD (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

17 agencies

(Discussion moved here in reply to SusanLesch's comment in the survey)

• Oppose. The opinion of Mr. Assange is not equivalent to that of 17 agencies. Support this in the article only, not the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the report and you'll see that only 3 agencies actually authored to it: NSA, CIA, FBI (nope, not Coast Guard Intelligence etc.) As Zeit put it: "not all participated". Contrast this with the de-classified—and utterly mistaken—2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD, where 10 agencies directly and explicitly participated in the actual preparation of the report. The stuff about this being the "conclusion of 17 agencies" has a definite source: a tweet from Hillary Clinton that was inexplicably endorsed as "100% true" by Politifact on the basis of the fact that "James Clapper, speaks on behalf of the group (of 17 agencies)." (just like your manager at work speaks "on behalf" you and and everyone else under his thumb, regardless of their actual opinions or knowledge) Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub presents a strawman here. SusanLesch didn't mention the unclassified report, only Guccisamsclub did. She is referring to what reliable sources have covered about 17 (or 18 agencies) determining that Russia, under Putin's direction did hack and with the intent to influence the 2016 U.S. elections. He also presents another strawman here by introducing the 2002 Intelligence report. User:SusanLesch did not mention that either.

Then another confounding statement - referring to Twitter, which is not part of the reliable sourcing in the main stream press that covered the conclusion by 17 U.S. agencies. And that bit about James Clapper "rules" over all these agencies and speaks for all of them is not based on facts. To wit: "US spy CHIEFS insisted Thursday they have strong evidence that Russia mounted an unprecedented bid to disrupt the American election" [2]; "U.S. intelligence CHIEFS (say): Russia meddled in 2016 election through hacking, propaganda" [3]Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, when reading the sources carefully and paying attention to the chronology, a lot of the "unanimous agreement" can be traced to John O. Brennan's letter to his staff at the CIA, which was then leaked to the press by CIA officials. The FBI and the NSA participated in the JAR and ODNI reports but declined to comment on conclusions (see the huge disclaimer on the front page), and the multiple other agencies were totally uninvolved. — JFG ^talk 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually not seeing that discalimer either in the JAR or the ICA. Explicitly, the JAR was prepared by DHS and FBI, while the ICA was prepared by FBI, NSA, CIA. There is indeed no evidence that any other agencies—most of which know nothing about cyber war—had input. Steve is the only one here who still seems to believe in these 17 agencies. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My !vote pertains only to the proposal as outlined above. Guccisamsclub has an argument with someone else. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem was your justification not the !vote itself. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Unconstructive bickering
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
No, I think the problems' are your justifications for fringe viewpoints. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC) And I forgot to mention you seem to like creating ref-bombs ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC) No, the problem is that you've nothing substantive to say about the topic, and are therefore reduced to launching hypocritical and absurd personal attacks.Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately, once again, it seems User:Guccisamsclub offers fictional descriptions rather than factual reality. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

False equivalence

The "include" view is largely based on a false equivalence. The topic of the article is the Russian interference by Russians. Therefore we can state that the Russians denied it, because, hey, they should know, right? If the topic were "leaks by Assange" then he could deny that because he knows whether he leaked. But Assange can't say whether the Russians hacked because, how would he know?? He might know or he might not know. So we can still put it in the article, maybe, even though it's kind of like my nephew who thinks it was really the Aussies or the Pomeranians. So please, no false equivalence between objects of two logically different categories. SPECIFICO talk 05:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand the WP:SCOPE of the article. The issue is not just whether Russia or not hacked the DNC, but also how, as well as who else was involved and if so how. And even if the scope was as narrow as you imply, it would still not make the question of who handed the data directly to Wikileaks immaterial. Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, at all. He has not asserting the Russians had nothing to do with it. He is saying Wikileaks did not receive the documents from Russia. Also since Wikileaks alleged involvement with the Russians was originally stated as a vehicle for the Russian interference. It is notable and widely covered. PackMecEng (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The accusation is that Assange received the emails from Russians, which he denies. TFD (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Directly from the Russians? Why is that important? This article is about the Russians' hacking, not how they got the goods into Assange's hands, right? SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It is extensively covered above. PackMecEng (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused

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

---

This is based on the edit by user:JFG, [4] which was reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, [5] While the wording in the RFC originally had "accused", user:DrFleischman suggest the wording conclusion [6], which was agreed to by myself [7] with no editor raising a red flag. The basic issue was also discussed here in the talk page for Russian interference. Casprings (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(A) The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections.

Versus

(B) The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.

Reference list
References

Note: Added RFC to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article as it also relates to discussion ongonging there.Casprings (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Note 2: Past debates involving the proposed wording have occurred at both Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and United_States_presidential_election,_2016. This RFC, being posted on both pages, is meant to provide consensus for both articles. On this issue, an admin user:coffee stated "As long as the RFC clearly informs editors that the results of the RFC will apply to both articles, I think this RFC is well within process. Transclusions don't necessarily happen like that, but it's certainly not going to effect the outcome of consensus to keep them" [8] However, the discussion is also ongoing here. Casprings (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• This must be option "B". Yes, the agencies made such conclusion, and there are numerous publications about it. What's the problem? Telling "agencies" is more precise than the "government". Besides, what government? I am not sure that current government makes this accusation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B concluded. Also, "determined" is used in many RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A as determined by RfC above, with perhaps additional tweaks mentioning Russia was accused and sanctioned by the Obama administration. The paragraph is also too long imho. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B Don't see the problem, it's clearer and RS'd. Also concur the 'Gov.t accused' is vague, which govt, who in that govt? Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC) ... ps also don't see the necessity of "United States government's intelligence agencies", this could be "United States intelligence agencies", also, if we use this, should we add the "moderate to high certainty" of the conclusion? Pincrete (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Both kinda - the A is about the government, the B is about the intelligence services. For intelligence services I think 'conclude' is solid. For the US government -- I'm thinking that should be included in altered form, more properly 'Obama Administration imposed sanctions' to differentiate it from the Trump administration and note it's not the full U.S. Government. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A amdneded to the former Obama administration. MSM saying there is evidence is different to there actually being evideice. There is also no saying they didn't aid Hillary Clinton, and that must be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This speculation is based on ... what, exactly? Neutrality^talk 21:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B As OP. This statement states a clear fact "The IC conclusion was.." and it matches WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Neither It's unclear what is meant by government. It could mean for example the Obama administration. And intelligence agencies don't make conclusions. And unless we are mind-readers, it is difficult to know what these people concluded as opposed to what they claimed. So we could say, "The United States government's intelligence agencies claimed the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." Or we could say that it was a conclusion of a report by the agencies. TFD (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B concluded, but would not object to a reformulation which captures both the IC's conclusion, and the government's formal accusation based on the IC's conclusion. Would strongly oppose "claimed," as this is not the common framing in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Both options are, in their own contexts, accurate enough, but I would go with option B as it was the conclusion which prompted the accusation. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a variation of option A elsewhere (after B is used) in the article, or even a combination such as "U.S. Intel concluded that Russia interfered, prompting the Govn't to publicly accuse them." Pardon the unecyclopedic terseness, but I'm sure we can all see what I'm getting at there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B with two small changes. First, it should identify the intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence). Second, the Fox News opinion piece shouldn't be cited as a source. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A, or something similar. I think that The Four Deuces' point about being more precise is correct. We should specify that it was the Obama administration that made the claim. We can (and already do) say later in the lede that a number of US intelligence agencies have claimed Russian interference in the US elections. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option C, "United States government intelligence agencies have stated the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." This is most accurate, since we know what the agencies have publicly revealed, either to media, or sources. The internal conclusions of intelligence agencies are often complex, contradictory, and public statements may convey exactly the opposite of what agencies internally conclude (as I noted above [9]). If that isn't possible, I would support Option A, being more accurate than B. -Darouet (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B per cited sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B per WP:WEIGHT - more accurately reflects the cited sources. Also, no need to specify agencies - this is for the lede. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A The title of the current source (Washington Post) for the claim in question is "U. S. government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections". We all know that governments and spy agencies lie. We don't know if they really believe that Russia "hacked the election". All we know is that they are accusing Russia of doing this. Jrheller1 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B - more accurately reflects sources (also, didn't we have this discussion already)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The lede sentence has one citation. That citation does not say 'conclude'. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B, per the overwhelming majority of RS. --Tataral (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

"Overwhelming majority of reliable sources" is false. As I stated, the first reference cited in the first paragraph actually uses the word "accuses". The other source cited by the first paragraph is a NYT article from January 6, 2017. This article starts out "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released on Friday a report that detailed what it called a Russian campaign to influence the election". Note the use of the words "what it called". So neither of the sources cited by the first paragraph are just taking what the "intelligence community" says at face value. Jrheller1 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The cited WaPo source isn't a very good one for the semantics of this RfC. Yes, according to WaPo the Obama administration "accused" the Russians of interfering in October 2016. Then CIA "concluded" that the Russians interfered and the FBI and DNI agreed with that "assessment" in December 2016. A joint report was described as "conclusions" in January 2017. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Both secondary sources used for the first paragraph acknowledge that the primary sources (the Obama administration and the "intelligence community") are not necessarily reliable in what they are communicating to the public about this topic. Wikipedia must use mainly secondary sources rather than primary sources. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing using primary sources here. I'm talking about what The Washington Post published in its own voice, just as you did. You pointed out that the Post used "accused," and I pointed out that the Post later used "concluded." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to use recent sources because we no longer see any uncertainty in mainstream reporting. The "only an accusation" or "phony CIA scheme" narratives are FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk

Both Specifico and DrFleischman seem to think that Wikipedia should report on statements by the Obama administration and James Clapper's office as if they are fact. My position is that Wikipedia needs to recognize the possibility of error or deception in public statements by a government or spy agency, which is exactly what the New York Times and Washington Post articles do. How could anyone forget the false accusations that Saddam possessed WMD or Clapper's lie that the NSA was not doing any mass surveillance? Jrheller1 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The most current information says Intelligence agencies "concluded". If you have RS that says there is the possibility of deception about Russian interference in the US election of 2016 by US intelligence agencies then please present it. I don't think this is exactly what the WaPo and New York Times articles do - that sounds like a misreading of these two publications. Also, bringing a 2002 intelligence report into the discussion is a strawman argument. And we don't base articles on what people believe or suppose. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Jrheller1, you seem to be cherry-picking sources to distort a comprehensive analysis of the sources. I already pointed out that The Washington Post transitioned from used "accused" to using "concluded." Your continued citation of the Post's use of "accused" as evidence that the agencies' views might be wrong (of course they might be) suggests bad faith, or at least a failure to listen. Please convince me that I'm mistaken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option A: (A) we can say for certain (B) is speculation. We're not in the speculation business. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Well-stated re 'certain' vs 'speculation'. Would add date and fix tense for clarity. Humanengr (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B as more factual, better supported, and more neutral language. I suggest a slight wording change: I think "have concluded" would be better than "concluded". Also, why are we using references? This is for the lede, isn't it - where we don't normally use references? --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  Short answer to your questions: you are mistaken or you have been misled. Politrukki (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, MelanieN is correct. We normally don't use citations in the lede, but we make an exception when the statement is controversial (either among editors here, or in the wider world). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I clicked the wrong link and mixed United States elections, 2016 with United States presidential election, 2016 – only the latter includes something about Russian interference in the lead. However, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is more or less a breaking news story and currently there at least 21 sources cited in the lead. There's no benefit of removing citations from one sentence in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Politrukki (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option A – although we should say that it was the Obama administration. Option A is consistent with the reliable sources and better sourced, at least for now. Weeks have passed and still nobody has bothered to answer my question for why cherry-picking of sources that seem to support option B is justified. Politrukki (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect - it wasn't "the Obama administration" only. First, the U.S. government's conclusion was based on the assessment of career intelligence officers, not political appointees. Second, the U.S. government has maintained and indeed strengthened its conclusion. Trump has conceded Russia's interference in the election; here (WaPo), and here (NYT: "Donald Trump Concedes Russia’s Interference in Election"). CIA Director Pompeo has officially backed the intelligence report on Russian hacking in testimony given to Senate Intelligence Committee. And FBI Director Comey has repeatedly reaffirmed the U.S. government's conclusions, including in Senate Judiciary Committee just days ago. Neutrality^talk 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option B hesitantly, as I think the article needs to be WP:NOTNEWS and the community around the page needs to move towards summarizing the entire episode in WP:NPOV. This whole page has turned into a tit-for-tat of line-by-line direct quotes from sources. Per WP:IMPARTIAL: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." IMO, page needs a cooling off period and then a rewrite with focus on encyclopedia summary rather than continued conflict over quotes by a factionalized sets of page editors. - RYPJack (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment Formal request to close RFC here. Casprings (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B Most oppinions have already mentioned my point of view for this issue. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A Accused. Is this a U.S. pedia or a global pedia? Leading with “The U.S. … concluded" lends unwarranted authority to the "U.S.” as determiner of ‘facts', and introduces a bias inappropriate to a global ‘encyclopedia’. Humanengr (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B per sources. Note: this is an RfC about page United States presidential election, 2016. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option C per Darouet is most clear and accurate. If that is not possible, Option A per reasoning by Humanengr. Adlerschloß (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option B Both options are reliable sourced and B is more complete information. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B. It's the one that's neutral to reporting in the bulk of reliable sources. Odd that I'm only finding this RFC now. Geogene (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B Based on reliable sources that I've seen. [10] Happysomeone (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B as supported by reliable sources. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B - While A is true, it grossly understates the reality of the situation and tends to cast doubt where almost none actually exists.- MrX 10:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B - Both are true. B is what we see in most RS. If readers feel that the United States government's intelligence agencies are not trustworthy, they still have the right to not believe the conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B. All major RS are clear about this now. Whether one agrees with their conclusions or not, there is no doubt that the intelligence agencies are not in doubt. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Only readers of Breitbart, RT, Infowars, and other purveyors of "real" fake news (not the Trump kind) still have doubts. In fact, such editors should not be editing here. If they can't tell the difference between reliable sources and extreme propaganda bias and fake news, and therefore imbibe such garbage, their mindset renders their presence here a constant disruption. That's what we're constantly seeing on this page. If an editor won't change their mind and bring their thinking into line with what RS say, something's wrong with their thinking and/or sources of information. If they'd only imbibe RS, they would not have these problems and then cause problems here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - would it be possible to include the option (C) The United States government's intelligence agencies have stated the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.[4][5][6] ? I think this communicates their statements (which we know) without attempting to infer what intelligence agencies, whose conclusions are by definition highly secret, have internally assessed (which we cannot know). Pinging Casprings. -Darouet (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This RfC is too far along to add another option. After it closes feel free to bring it up for discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that Darouet's proposal above is by far the most neutral way to word the issue. We don't have a crystal ball to know what the intelligence agencies internally assess, but we know what they publicly state. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: A or B, not baby makes 3. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Kommentar – source ­#4 is an opinion piece. It would be unwise to cite an opinion piece without proper attribution. Source #3, which is used in option A, sort of supports option B: it says "In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election". Politrukki (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there's some issues with the mark up of this RfC and how it fits into this talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes: because it's been transcluded in two places, it's hard to tell whether editors are commenting on what should be the appropriate text in one article or in the other. See WP:AN#Question on Wikipedia:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused. — JFG ^talk 17:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

So basically this whole RfC is one big cf? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's just say the closer will have an interesting job… — JFG ^talk 07:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus clause, that is currently being clarified at ARCA on the ARBIA front, does not apply to this one article. El_C 21:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment I would point out that some US intel agencies had not been so conclusive. It should be clear that this is the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case. There was some ambiguity very early on, but the U.S. Intelligence Committee statement covers the view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. And the FBI is on the same page. See Washington Post ("FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House"); USA Today ("FBI accepts CIA conclusion that Russians hacked to help Trump"). Neutrality^talk 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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

• @Exemplo347: I'm concerned your close does not address the arguments presented in detail. Your wording could be applied (equally relevantly) to any of a dozen RfCs with options A and B. While the reasoning behind those words may be detailed it is important they be reflected in the closure. If anyone can advise me on the process and propriety of challenging such a closure I would appreciate a note on my talk page. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: The reason may be succinct, but no additional detail is required. I have assessed the consensus of the discussion and explained my reasoning. Challenging a closure because you don't feel that my reason is wordy enough... well, that doesn't seem like a policy-based argument. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

US Officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

Seems important as this develops. US Officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html Casprings (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

like this part: "In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power."" ? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Dramatic all right, but not ready for the article yet IMO. "US officials", "suggests", "may have". "One law enforcement officer" says it suggests coordination but "other US officials" say it's premature to draw that conclusion. This is such an explosive allegation that we will need something less vague and more firmly sourced. (At least "FBI sources" or something to identify the agency - not just "US officials"). --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The part I quoted is straight from Comey.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I was replying to Casprings, not to you. We edit-conflicted. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you could put it in and tell the source. That said, as/if more gets reported, this is extremely important. Would be the most historically significant thing to happen in an election in my lifetime.Casprings (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Right now only CNN seems to have this. Other sources like The Hill are reporting that CNN is reporting it. I think it should be embargoed for a few hours at least. If the FBI really thinks collusion is likely, they're probably leaking like a sieve right now. Geogene (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I did a double-take when I saw this, to be sure, but I agree with MelanieN. Too many qualifiers: "suggests," "may have," "suspected Russian operatives," "possibly coordinate," "the information was not conclusive," etc. GAB^gab 02:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Only one outlet is saying this directly (and others as "according to CNN ...) because that's the outlet that obtained the information and spoke to the sources. Often the most interesting information will be unique to one outlet; when everyone is reporting something it's usually because it's public information anyway or just a recycled press release. That said, there's a huge amount of leaking around this story from people on every side of it, all trying, like media outlets themselves, to push their own agendas. Equally, the media often elevates passing comments into overblown headlines, with the caveats always buried in the article. Per this recent RSN thread, there was a consensus that an encyclopedia should be wary of relying on this kind of reporting – whether it happens to buttress people's personal view of what has supposedly been going on or contradict it. N-HH talk/edits 10:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that, thanks. Still a good idea to wait for more sources (with their own sources in the IC) to decide to report this themselves. Does everyone realize the potential enormity of this? Geogene (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why at least some mention somewhere would be inappropriate - CNN is practically a semi-official source, and their publication is notable in and of itself. Including this text would not somehow imbalance the article. Re-writing the whole article neutrally is a far more worthwhile endeavor if we're looking for balance. -Darouet (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Quote from CNN source cited above: "The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said." I agree with user:geogene that it's good to hold off until more sourcing, harder confirmation available, IMHO. -- RYPJack (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

CBS News: FBI probing whether Trump aides helped Russian intel in early 2016

More reporting confirming the CNN reporting.

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-probing-whether-trump-aides-helped-russian-intel-in-early-2016/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab8a&linkId=36077589

Casprings (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with user:geogene and RYPJack that until hard confirmation of the allegations cited in this article is available, WP:WEASEL-worded statements supporting the allegations should not be given undue weight in this article, any more than Joseph McCarthy's list of "card-carrying Communists" in the US Army and US Department of State belongs in our articles as a source to support statements about the people Senator McCarthy accused of being Russian collaborators.

The encyclopedic value of an article based entirely on allegations made without a public hearing on the issue is no greater than a separate article on the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's removal of sensitive Email from behind a Secure Classified Intelligence Facility fire-walled server to her privately-owned, much less-well secured Email server while she was US Secretary of State. Do we have such a separate article? loupgarous (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we? Why not start one. See whether you find references. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent objections

OT1H, the following remains without objection:

"On March 19, 2017, Schiff told Meet the Press that, despite denials from intelligence officials, there was "circumstantial evidence of collusion" between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, as well as "direct evidence of deception." He added that "there is certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation."[117] On March 22, 2017, Schiff stated that he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of collusion between Trump associates and the Kremlin.[118]"

while OTOH, Ali Watkins report remains excluded:

"On March 9, 2017, Ali Watkins, a Pulitzer Prize finalist for coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture and on staff at both Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, reported after speaking with "more than half a dozen officials involved with the committee’s investigation” who requested anonymity, that "Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence."

To this point, no editor has responded to explain the difference between including Schiff but excluding Watkins. See prior discussion. Humanengr (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Schiff's opinion is notable because he is on the House Intelligence Committee and has seen whatever classified intel has been turned over to the committee (or Nunes has deemed fit to let them see). As for Watkins, that's a cherry-picked - and IMO somewhat misinterpreted - quote from a long article focusing on the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation itself. The quoted paragraph goes on to say: Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called "wildly inflated" expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation. Here are some different - and fairly random - quotes from the same BuzzFeed article:

• "I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations," a second official said. That take isn’t universally held — a third official balked at that notion, and said "there’s a lot of room to find something significant."
• Lost in the political shuffling is the fact — concluded by 17 US intelligence agencies — that the upper echelons of Russia’s government directed an operation aimed at manipulating and disrupting the US election, and to a notable degree, succeeded. Short of an impeachable offense, officials are concerned the public is missing the forest for the trees.
• The House Intelligence Committee has also received assurances from the intelligence community that its investigators will be provided access to Gang of Eight documents, a House aide said. That commitment, the aide said, came from the director of national intelligence's office.

Some fact-checking: The info on Watkins is incorrect. The 2015 Pulitzer prize finalist was the trio of McClatchy Washington Bureau reporters Taylor, Landay, and Watkins, not Watkins alone "for timely coverage of (CIA) ...". Watkins was hired by HuffPo in October 2014; she left HuffPo in October 2015 when she was hired by BuzzFeed (WaPo), so she's not "... on staff by both Huffington Post and BuzzFeed ...". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Membership on a committee does not make one's opinions notable, and presenting them as the only opinion is biased. Obviously there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation but the bar for that is low. A fool calling in a false bomb threat will trigger an investigation. This is the same Adam Schiff who voted to invade Iraq on “based on the intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction.” He later said, "Our failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq thus far has been deeply troubling, and our intelligence-gathering process needs thorough and unbiased investigation." Fool me once, shame on me. TFD (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Would you object if we included a fuller set of quotes from the article? Humanengr (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would, by reason of WP:BALANCE. Note to self: less rambling, more getting to the point. With that in mind, more of either one or the other: The article is about how the committee is going about using the "… sweeping powers, unseen since the Watergate era, to investigate Russian meddling …", the obstacles they are facing, the differences of opinions among committee members, etc.; interesting stuff but a marginal aspect to the topic at hand (maybe it’ll qualify for its own Wikipedia article someday - see suggestion above). At the time the article was written (3 weeks ago, ancient history in this case), the committee had received approval to view Gang of Eight intelligence but hadn’t actually done so (at least, that’s my interpretation of Watkin’s article), so anything "some Democrats", "one official", "a second official", or "a third official" said at that point in time is little more than soothsaying (expect/don’t expect to find, etc.). I think we should hold off until there are some tangible results. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: thx. re "tangible results": Does this article present any 'tangible results'? Yes or no will suffice. Humanengr (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: So? I'd like to understand what you mean by 'tangible results'? Humanengr (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"A Pulitzer Prize finalist" ?? Really? How many of those are there, living and dead? SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: What fraction of the cites on this page were written by Pulitzer Prize finalists? Humanengr (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Would it surprise you to learn that I, SPECIFICO, am a Pulitzer finalist? SPECIFICO talk 12:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It might surprise me if it were true. Humanengr (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, the test is also DUE WEIGHT, and in the case of Rep. Schiff's statement the test may be NOTNEWS. The facts are gradually being established, and it's not clear we're being productive following the daily news, except in statements (at least arguably,per Space4etc, such as Schiff's) when the news fundamentally advances the factual narrative. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: As context, and as you mentioned 'facts': Is it a 'fact' that the Russians interfered in the 2016 United States elections? Humanengr (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: <polite nudge>

POV Dispute

I think everyone who has been involved here for a while understands that there are serious disputes about POV in this article. But just to summarize some of those disputes briefly:

• First off, there have been several RfC's on the article's title which have failed to reach any consensus, with editors split on whether the title is a NPOV violation. In my judgment, the declarative nature of the title, which lacks the word "alleged" or "allegations," used by many reliable sources, violates NPOV.
• Next, there is the issue of the lede, which is largely a repetition of official US government positions, which barely mentions the Russian government position, and which leaves out Wikileaks' statements entirely.
• Thirdly, there is the systematic removal of experts and commentators who have expressed doubt about US government claims of Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election.

This is just a short summary of some of the serious POV disputes here. I hope that we can work to address them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This is soooo last December. There is no RS reporting today that contradicts the neutral tone of the article. WP does not give "equal time" to fringe or self-serving denials of the facts as they are now known and reported. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: the "overwhelming consensus of 17 intelligence agencies" has been more and more put in doubt since December. That's a fact too. The narrative in reliable sources has moved away from "Russia totally stole the election" towards "Putin wanted to weaken Clinton no matter whether she would get elected", from "Trump is a Putin puppet, actively sabotaging democracy" towards "some Trump campaign people possibly colluded with Russia", and finally "Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador during the transition and resigned, this is proof!".

Did Flynn manipulate the election with a time machine? Did Trump's failed or cancelled real estate deals in Russia give him an unfair advantage with Pennsylvania voters? Did Putin exert mind control or kompromat on the Hillary people to prevent them from campaigning in the "blue wall" states which eventually gave Trump the presidency by thin margins?

Many experts have commented that the "evidence" provided in all those reports is questionable, made up of inferences and fearmongering. Sure, RT is not exactly US-friendly, so what? Is CNN accused of treason in Russia for not being exactly Russia-friendly?

Three separate investigations are ongoing, including the one by the FBI since July, and none of them found any solid evidence of anything; they keep chewing on the same allegations first raised in June 2016 when it was revealed the DNC got hacked. Nobody knows who hacked them; even the intelligence community witnesses admit that they don't have proof beyond "similarities" with "typical" Russian means of action.

Meanwhile, Wikileaks has shown how the CIA can easily spoof Russian, Chinese or Korean attacks, and I'm sure the Russians or the Chinese can also conduct their cyberespionage without leaving blatant traces. Those are also "facts known and reported", it's a bit too easy to just call them fringe. However, I have given up on this article; pardon my rant and enjoy your tunnel vision… — JFG ^talk 23:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"the "overwhelming consensus of 17 intelligence agencies" has been more and more put in doubt since December. " - Huh? Wait, hold, on... HUH? No, no it hasn't. Are you saying that now these intelligence agencies are saying that Russia DIDN'T hack the DNC? Because if that's your claim, I want to see those sources. You seem to be saying that because this whole thing has blown up with all kinds of OTHER shady stuff coming out the original, fairly mild claim "Russia interfered", is no longer valid. That's ass backwards buddy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth (or don't hack my keyboard!): I'm not claiming that IC agencies have changed their stance, I'm claiming that many credible sources have put several elements of their inferences in doubt, with inferences of their own that are at least as plausible. After each crescendo report comes out, a litany of people pick it apart and see nothing new, nothing substantial. The strongest claim I've seen from the IC reports is "RT is a propaganda arm of the Kremlin"; well duh, like people need a lecture on disinformation by the CIA to understand this basic reality? And the only responses have been "we have proof but we can't show it" or "how dare anyone question the brave and infallible US Intelligence Community" or "look, facts are here, why deny the obvious" (a favorite line of John McCain). Month after month after month of weaseling and harping on the Trump / Russia connection. Where's the beef? Obviously, it's not for us lowly Wikipedians to judge who's right, but IT IS OUR JOB to depict a fair balance of the various theories and viewpoints that have been put forward by credible people (and before you yell fringe, I'm not referring to nutjobs here). — JFG ^talk 22:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as how I quoted you directly, it's sort of... pointless for you to claim that I am "putting words in your mouth", no? And that's some interesting original research but actually this article right here, and the dozens of reliable sources within it are a pretty clear proof that it's just not true that, ahem, let me quote you again "The strongest claim" IS THAT "RT is a propaganda arm of the Kremlin". I mean, come on! At the very least admit that the hacking of the DNC - which, again, one more time, let me repeat, even the Trump team acknowledges was done by Russia - is a "stronger claim". Or that hackers accessed voter registration rolls. Or that troll accounts specifically targeted certain demographics in certain states to tip the election. Or that several Trump associates had meetings with Russian intelligence agents or officials (and a few of them lied about it). I mean there stuff coming out every few days - Erik Prince setting up meetings came out today. Or Carter Page being recruited by Russian intelligence. Sorry. This "oh it's only RT" is just obfuscation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is about what's actually in the article and what mainstream RS say. It's not about whatever nonsense is on American cable tv or clickbait sites from day to day. The OR "rant" is not useful for editors here. I congratulate you on having decided to move on. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote here is OR (except the rhetorical questions), but you don't like the sources. When Clapper says something that goes your way, it must be quoted in full and prominently displayed in the lead; when he says something that goes the opposite way, it's fringe, undue and buried in a subsection. We've been through these conversations so many times that I have just about given up bringing a modicum of balance to this trainwreck of an article. So allow me to congratulate you in turn: your persistence has paid off. Let me know when is your birthday and I'll send you a "Nevertheless, she persisted" t-shirt. — JFG ^talk 23:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: @SPECIFICO: Let's keep this on subject. I think we can all acknowledge that there's a serious dispute on this page about POV. I'd like to discuss how to address it.

I'll go first: the lede needs more balance. Right now, it focuses almost solely on statements made by US government officials. For greater balance, it needs more detail on the Russian response - the short sentence there isn't enough. Additionally, it should include the statement made by Assange about the leaks not coming from Russia, since he's a central figure in this subject, and his statement received widespread coverage. All in all, the lede should also be much shorter. The details can be left to the body of the text. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The lede is fine. "Balance" appears to be an excuse for "let me add some undue weight". Yes, Russia denied it. It's already there. You want eight different ways of saying they denied it? Why? Lede is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the shortened and (in my modest opinion) neutral lead section that I wrote from scratch as an exercise a few weeks ago, when discussing the long-term perspective of this article:

Following the publication of DNC internal communications by WikiLeaks in June and October 2016, several US intelligence agencies affirmed that Russia had attempted to intervene in the presidential election, indicating a preference for candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. In retaliation, President Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and expanded sanctions to individuals linked with the Russian secret service. Russia has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Trump dismissed the allegations of Russian meddling as partisan fodder. Upon taking office he vowed to work with Russia constructively while maintaining a strong defense of American interests. Accusations of collusion between Trump campaign members and Russian officials are under investigation by the Senate and House intelligence committees. Cybersecurity experts are divided about the relevance of technical elements linking the DNC intrusions to Russian hacker groups. Some intelligence officials are wary that President Trump may not trust their reports at face value. The controversy has sparked intense media interest and scrutiny of all parties involved.

Feel free to tweak and get ready for prime time. Each sentence can be easily sourced, although I believe that a lead section without sources is easier to read; there are plenty enough sources in the article body. We should add FBI to the "ongoing investigations" phrase now that it has been revealed. — JFG ^talk 00:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Pardon, but I’m having difficulty understanding your point, and your complaints seem too general for response. As for statements by Assange, some mention may be acceptable. But, he is hardly a reliable source for anything. I don’t see how we can add more on the Russian response since it’s basically: It didn’t happen. The lead (lede) is likely too long. But, it’s a complex subject. (Note: I had an edit conflict with JFG and will wait for your response before….) Objective3000 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: "But, he is hardly a reliable source for anything." A lot of editors here misunderstand what WP:RS means. It does not mean that we cannot quote people who may have an agenda. It simply means that anything the article states has to be well sourced. The fact that Assange said Russia is not the source for the leaks is documented by many reliable sources, so there's absolutely no WP:RS problem with quoting Assange. The only question, then, is whether Assange's statement is undue, and I can't see how it could possibly be argued that it is. His statement was covered widely by the press, and as the head of Wikileaks, he's a central figure in the story. The fact that his statement isn't covered in the lede is a major POV problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: You say of Assange: he is hardly a reliable source for anything. He is by definition a RS for his own positions, and those have been pretty consistent all along. And I may add that irrespective of their political opinions, Wikileaks is a pretty damn reliable source for whatever they leak: none of the documents released over the last 10 years have been proven false or doctored; they have been consistently authentic and embarrassing to whoever they were stolen from, and that's the whole point. As I wrote in the RfC, it doesn't matter what WP editors think about Assange's credibility, but as it happens, Assange and WikiLeaks have a pretty long track record of publishing leaked documents that were proven to be authentic and truthful, irrespective of the political consequences involved: Cablegate, Iraq War Logs, Stratfor emails, TPP draft, etc. Uncomfortable? Certainly. Partisan? Probably. Credible? Definitely. — JFG ^talk 10:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: Not to redo the RfC here (I have requested a closer), but please note that in my short lead proposal I do not include Assange, however in the current super-long lead, his statements would deserve a few words. — JFG ^talk 05:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

none of the documents released over the last 10 years have been proven false or doctored An absurd statement, because to "prove" the veracity of a stolen document requires you to steal the same yourself and compare. It does matter what we think about Assange's credibility, because we have discretion as to whether mentioning him is WP:UNDUE or not. Further, the bulk of reliable sources don't seem to be finding him that credible, at least compared with the attention he gets compared to the IC/USG sources. Maybe that's the reason some think this article is unfair? Take that up with the sources! Geogene (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In espionage matters, the lack of blanket denials often proves the authenticity of the documents. They can be cross-checked and corroborated with other sources or through the lens of history, as happened with the diplomatic cables. The Iraq war logs were acknowledged as authentic raw data and the leaker was jailed as a traitor for threatening the security of military personnel, which wouldn't be an issue if the documents were fake. None of the Snowden disclosures has been proven wrong or doctored, in fact most of what has been published was later verified on the ground. And in some cases even stolen documents can be proven authentic without "stealing them yourself", e.g. Podesta emails were proven authentic by Google's own DKIM cryptographic signatures, which can't be forged if any bit of the original message is changed. — JFG ^talk 23:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The RFC on the Assange comments was opened less than a month ago. You are all proposing things that have been proposed before and haven't attracted consensus.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• You added the templates and then "POV dispute" to the Talk page. Shouldn't you have gone to the Talk page first and waited for the outcome of the alleged POV dispute discussion? Aside from having been over this over and over again, moving of the page having been endorsed, ... Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The POV dispute tags merely reflect the fact that there is a dispute over NPOV on this page. The tag is supposed to be added when such a dispute exists, while the discussion over POV is ongoing. I think everyone can agree that there is a dispute over POV here. As far as POV goes, this is probably one of the most heavily disputed pages on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's trivially easy to generate artificial "disputes" on the talk page by engaging in a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Which is what you're doing here. That is why the POV tag needs to be substantiated - which means you either show everyone some sources or you leave it alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The dispute isn't artificial. Just look through the talk page and the archives, and there's no doubt that many editors feel this article is strongly biased. If the POV dispute tag is inappropriate on this page, then there's no page on Wikipedia on which it's appropriate. This is probably one of the most contentious articles on the whole project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Considering that you guys are even questioning whether reliable sources actually say that Russia interfered in the election (of course they freakin' do!) when even the Trump administration concedes as much... yeah, the dispute is artificial. Like I said, it's time to drop the stick and step away from the dead parrot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I presented a random sampling of sources a while back, and that sampling showed that most sources use some variation on "alleged," "allegations," or "sources claim." You like to cite WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which describes your reaction to my findings pretty well. In any case, I think it's obvious there's a POV dispute here, both over content and the title, which makes your removal of the POV tags inappropriate. Please restore them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Uno: "random" is nonsense. You drew them blindfolded out of a hat? Dos: You need to look at recent RS text that reflects current mainstream presentation unless you're editing the wayback machine. Tres: "sources claim" ?? 🐵. SPECIFICO talk

"Random" as in not cherry-picked. They were the first hits on a Google search. I told you, at the time, what search term I used. I also presented the top hits from two major foreign-language newspapers: Le Monde and the Süddeutsche Zeitung. The results showed that most reliable sources were not presenting "Russian interference" as a fact. They described it as an allegation/claim made by American officials.

But just to reiterate: there is a POV dispute here. That means the tags have to go back. After that, we can discuss individual POV problems in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're not prepared to respond to the statements of your fellow editors here, discussion is pointless. WP doesn't do "random" google that for starters. SPECIFICO talk 11:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

POV reflects that of the bulk of reliable sources. Some may not like that they give the intelligence community/non-WH US government officials a lot of credibility, and Assange relatively little, but this is not the forum for that. We could remove him completely. Geogene (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this many, many times. Most reliable sources refer to "allegations of" or "alleged" Russian interference in the US Presidential election. This article states the claims of US intelligence agencies much more definitively than most reliable sources do. As for Assange, what he said received very broad coverage, yet is hardly mentioned in this article at all. Very broadly, almost every critical opinion or assessment has been removed from the article. Finally, looking at the lede, all but 12 words of it discuss US government positions on the subject. There's a massive slant in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes we have been over this, so why are still you doing the whole WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing? Peppering the article with "alleged" is a violation of... well, WP:ALLEGED and it's a clear attempt to weasel this. For fuck's sake, even Trump administration now admits that Russia interfered. You really need to back away from this dead horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

And oh yeah, "all but 12 words of it discuss"... what reliable sources say. The fact you want to slap in some of your own personal OR isn't here nor there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree, broadly, that this article does a very poor job of relaying uncertainty by mainstream media and commentators over allegations of Russian hacking. One egregious POV violation, and an example of very poor writing, is the first paragraph: simple a very long quote of a report by US intelligence agencies. This would be absurd for an article on allegations from any other country. -Darouet (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What uncertainty??? Like I said. Even the Trump administration agrees that Russia intervened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There are still plenty of news agencies that routinely refer to this as "alleged Russian interference," or possible Russian hacking." -Darouet (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think (and just to be clear: I don't really agree with this; I just want to get editors on the same page) Darouet is suggesting it's a POV problem from a country perspective (the United States says Russia intervened; Russia says they did not ... we spend two paragraphs talking about the U.S. says before, at the end of the third paragraph, mentioning that Russia denies the claim), which is why mentioning that the Trump administration concurs isn't satisfying him.

One note: the Assange issue is closed. There was just an RFC on this. It's not really appropriate to say "Well I don't like the RFC outcome ... so there's still a POV dispute tag!" --216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The POV dispute goes far beyond just the placement of the Russian response or the Assange statement, although those are, of course, part of the POV dispute (on a side note, the fact that so many editors explicitly argued that Assange's statement shouldn't be included because it would undermine claims made by US intelligence points to the glaring problem here - highly politicized editing). I listed some of the elements of the dispute at the top of this section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

But of course, that view would be incorrect, which is why we operate on consensus and don't need to spend undue effort on bringing up the rear. The tag is garbage, but it apparently brings great solace to comrades in a time of grief. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I do not see any serious POV problems on the page and do not see them convincingly explained above. Here is what people who complain about POV are trying to include on the page. But let's check the "criticism" source they are quoting. It actually tells in the end (a kind of conclusion) the following: "In its report last June attributing the Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike’s conclusions. The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups. Still, some cybersecurity experts are skeptical ...". This page tells basically the same. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You may not see any serious POV problems, but editors here do, and have raised these issues on the talk page over the past few months. With the talk page and archives, I don't see how you can possibly claim that the neutrality of this article is not disputed.

The dispute might not exist if you and several other editors had been more amenable to compromise with editors who don't share your particular viewpoint, but you've molded the article into a hyper-partisan form. The lede is essentially a long recapitulation of US government claims, and throughout the article, almost every commentary that at all questions the views expressed by US intelligence has been removed.

But regardless, the neutrality of the article (and its title) is disputed. That's something that you have to admit. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No. I checked instruction and have to admit that #2 applies here: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.". That's why I think the tag was correctly removed by someone. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It cannot possibly be unclear to you what the neutrality issue is. I gave a bullet point of the top issues above, and several other editors raised additional issues. The way that you and Marek are dismissing the existence of a dispute over neutrality is pretty insulting to all the editors here who have raised issues with the POV of the article. You can't simply pretend we're not raising issues. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. Your point #1. No, there were RfC with definite conclusion, such as this. Having RfC with any outcomes does not prove the existence of POV problems on the page. Your point #2. No, the denial by Russia was mentioned in the lead. Yes, the lead can be made shorter, but this is hardly a POV problem. #3. No, the views by Russian government and Assange are prominently present in their own sections: [11], [12]. I do not see any obvious POV problems. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't just run around in circles with fingers in your ears yelling "it's disputed! it's disputed! it's disputed!" and then tag shame the article. This has been discussed ad nauseum. You don't have consensus. The NPOV tag is not a "I didn't get my way cuz stupid consensus was against me" tag. Tag shaming an article with a spurious NPOV tag is not a consolation prize you get when you've failed to achieve consensus for your edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The tag indicates that the neutrality of the article is disputed. Just read through the talk page above, and look through the archives. How can you seriously claim that the article's neutrality is not disputed? This isn't "shaming" the article. It's noting the fact that the article's neutrality is heavily disputed by a large number of editors. It's pretty disrespectful to all of us who have been editing here, and who dispute the neutrality of the article, to claim that there's no dispute. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, when you're saying things like "go through the archives," you're ignoring that some of the things you're taking issue with have been resolved (either by RFCs or other means). For example, that the lede contains only a brief mention of Russia is consistent with the closing statements at Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections/Archive_6#RfC:_Denial_by_Russian_officials. If there's an RFC and your proposal is rejected, you don't get to keep saying "DISPUTE! DISPUTE! DISPUTE!" --216.12.10.118 (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The result of the various RfCs was that editors are strongly divided on whether the article is neutral. In other words, the neutrality of the article is disputed. I don't have to yell "DISPUTE!" Just read above, and then tell me there isn't a dispute. If this page isn't disputed, then we should just do away with the POV tag altogether on Wikipedia, because there are few pages whose neutrality is more contentious than that of this page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn’t likely that the consensus wording in this article, or any of the articles relating to recent politics, will ever satisfy everyone. That is, someone will always “dispute” the article on POV grounds. That, in itself, is not grounds for a POV tag. Otherwise, WP would be littered with tags and they would not serve their purpose of starting discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not just that we haven't satisfied everyone. It's that nearly half of the active editors here think this article egregiously violates WP:NPOV. "Otherwise, WP would be littered with tags and they would not serve their purpose of starting discussion." On the entire project, I don't think there are many pages whose neutrality is more heavily disputed than that of this article. If the POV tag doesn't apply here, we should just eliminate the tag altogether from Wikipedia. You keep talking as if this is just my quibbling with the article. Just look above, and you'll see that there are many editors who have been arguing for months that this article has extremely serious WP:NPOV problems, and that those concerns have been basically run over roughshod by another group of editors. An ounce of respect for all the editors who have voiced opposition to the way the article has been formulated would require you to at least acknowledge that there is a dispute. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to change consensus, or claim consensus doesn’t exist, you are going to have to change your tact. It isn’t working. Just some practical advice. Objective3000 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the practical advice. If it were genuine, I would take it more seriously, but you're playing a pretty transparent game here. Almost every single edit I've made to this article has been reverted. The justifications for the reverts change, and the rationales flip 180 degrees when convenient, with the only consistency being that any material that is at all critical of US government claims is removed, and the article is stuffed with ever more poorly written bloat.

The neutrality of this article is heavily disputed, not just by me, but by somewhere around half of the editors who have been active here. If you were actually willing to engage with us on the neutrality issues, I would consider your personal advice (vague as it was - I didn't actually see any advice, other than that I should make an unspecified change in "tact"). But your refusal to acknowledge even that there is a neutrality dispute doesn't give me much hope that you'd ever be willing to give any consideration to the objections raised by numerous editors here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I have no time to engage further but I endorse Thucydides411's assertion that this article is one of the most highly disputed in all Wikipedia. When stating that simple fact is called "tag-shaming", all hope for neutrality is lost. The state of this article is shameful indeed. I would advocate a clean start per WP:TNT. The situation and the scandal(s) can probably be summarized in a clean and short article under 10 kB of prose, unfortunately everybody here wants to add their preferred WP:NEWS material and conspiracy bloat (I'm talking about both "sides"). Hopeless. — JFG ^talk 09:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know what “transparent game” I’m playing as I’ve made zero edits or reverts to this article. I don’t think discussion is going to be useful without assuming good faith. As I said, your tact isn’t working. Objective3000 (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing there's an article in SD Zeitstuff that says 2/17 = "nearly half?" SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The article indicates the U.S. has ‘concluded' that Russia interfered with U.S. elections. Russia has denied that (thought that denial is buried deep in the article). Of the 222 cites, 3 are from Russia. Is that not biased? Humanengr (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As the Hack occurred in the USA no.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

So RS's are determined by where the hack occurred?? Where is that in the policies? If an attack occurred on a spacecraft in near-earth orbit, would there be no sources? Humanengr (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it means that it is going to get a lot of coverage in the USA, and this is the English language Wiki so people will tend to use English language sources. It is not a bias on the part of Wikipedia or it's edds, it is availability. Now what do you think needs a Russian source?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

So your first reason ("As the Hack occurred in the USA") failed. The next reason is false on its face. "this is the English language Wiki so people will tend to use English language sources". That's 'bias'. You: "It is not a bias on the part of Wikipedia or it's edds, it is availability." Not true. Does it not strike you as odd that Russia Today gets only unfavorable mention? Humanengr (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The "nationality" of a source is completely irrelevant. All that matters is whether a source is reliable or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

So, e.g., Russia Today is not reliable? Humanengr (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That's correct. A different Russian source may be reliable. Just like there's plenty of American sources which are not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

For my edification, on what basis is RT not reliable? Humanengr (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Per guidelines laid out at WP:RS, specifically the lack of "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". You can also look through the archives of WP:RSN to read past discussions. RT may be reliable for simple non controversial statements or official statements from Russian (and other officials). Though in that case, why not just find a better source, if it's non controversial? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: iiuc, "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" as assessed by US RS -- correct? Humanengr (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. And once you start it with the loaded leading questions further discussion is sort of pointless since you've obviously ditched good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to this: "Of the 222 cites, 3 are from Russia. Is that not biased?" If so, how is that 'loaded'? Humanengr (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I am referring to: "as assessed by US RS -- correct?" Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx; how is that loaded? Were any of the RS not from the US (or UK)? Humanengr (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

RT flunked by the Board of Edification scroll down to RT discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Perhaps I missed it, but were any of the sources used to 'flunk' RT Russian sources? Humanengr (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: re: "A different Russian source may be reliable." So some Russian sources might have been missed? Humanengr (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Human. You are repeatedly asking leading questions with embedded misrepresentations of the persons to whom you address them. This is not constructive. Please reflect and desist. Others will speak for themselves, and those who disagree with you are not apt to jump through hoops no matter how eagerly you hold them. SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Err, the fact it occurred in the USA means that US sources will cover it most, that is not admitting a failure, that is explaining why US sources are mostly used.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Specific objections

This is getting rather long, rambling and unspecific.

If there is a problem with using predominantly US (or English) sources can we have some examples of RS here and what they support in the text?Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx for asking. It’s a combination of reframing by RS and further reframing by editors.

The 1st sentence says “The United States Intelligence Community has officially concluded that …”. That sentence cites an article headlined "U.S. government officially accuses …” which is a strengthening (though understandable by itself) of the 10/7/2016 DNI report it cites which states “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident …”.

But the title of the article takes it a step further and presents “Russian interference” as fact when, in fact, it has not been established ‘as fact’.

The 2nd sentence says "expressed 'high confidence’” directly citing the 1/6/2017 DNI report. The title is similarly not justified by this cite or any other.

Beyond that, the entire intro speaks in terms of investigations. It is a fact that there are investigations. And that fact should be reflected in the title. Humanengr (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolution

There seems to be a slow edit war over these tags. Based on the comments above, there seems to be minimal support for the OP's assertion that the article reflects a specific POV not supported by the majority of sources in the article itself. If the issue is Assange, that was handled by the RfC. From my reading, the article adheres to RfC by accurately reflecting the reliable sources and explaining any "sides" that exist with due weight. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I think that part of the issue that's come up again and again at this article and article talk, over the long term, is the conflation of "DUE WEIGHT" with "NO WEIGHT." I hope to make a longer post about this in a number of days (today if I can). In brief however, the relative certainty with which this article treats allegations that rely almost wholly upon the say-so of American intelligence agencies depends on excluding commentary from reliable sources that is skeptical of those allegations. Multiple RfCs have shown that while a majority of editors tend to vote to exclude skepticism, a great many editors have stated that the article should include more skepticism. That's not surprising: the RfC votes have tended to replicate the views of the American public generally, and the way in which media around this world (even if we ignore Russian media) have reported on skepticism. Unfortunately, almost none of this has made its way into the article. And that is theoretically possible on Wikipedia, even if a slim majority wants to exclude skepticism, and the editing (and general political) environment is polarized. It really doesn't need to be this way and it shouldn't. -Darouet (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: The issue of due weight/no weight is certainly important and I understand what you mean with regard to this article. The other problem, from what I gather here, is that the skepticism is from individuals more than news organizations (correct me if I am mistaken), and then the issue of notable opinions comes into play. I don't have an answer for that, and it might be that NPOVN can help resolve that. But as for the {{POV}}, it seems to me that they should stay off the article for now. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Also, there is no justification for NPOV tags when there are active talk page discussions and recently closed discussions about the article and title NPOV.- MrX 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on the above, there are many editors who think this article reflects a specific POV. @EvergreenFir: It's highly insulting to all of us editors who have argued that this article is non-neutral to pretend we don't exist. Just look at the talk page above. I see a slight majority supporting the article as-is, but a significant minority believing that it's highly skewed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: NOTAVOTE aside, I see at least 8 editors (myself included) that say there's no POV issue. You and JFG say there is one. Humanengr had questions about sources. That's not a slight majority. This all after the RfC was concluded. If you have issues with it, perhaps WP:NPOVN would be the best place. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess we need an RfC to decide whether the article neutrality is disputed. Or not. Tagging is useful but how do we work together towards neutrality when one group of "guardians" keeps insisting that there is no neutrality problem because only the "mainstream view" counts (and then cherry-picks what is mainstream enough)? — JFG ^talk 21:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Just to add to this, your edit summary here is misleading. The POV section of this talk page does not indicate a "general consensus" that the POV tags are unwarranted. You can't have honestly read through the back-and-forth between editors on both sides of the issue and come to the conclusion that there's "general consensus." Again, you're pretending that editors like myself, JFG, Humanengr and Darouet (not to mention all the editors who have previously argued that the article is non-neutral, but have given up editing here) simply do not exist, and simply skipping over our objections. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I read thought it. You clearly don't agree. But instead of tag warring, try another avenue (or stop mutilating horses?) JFG asks the right question, and to it I would answer WP:NPOVN. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: If you read through it, then you should have characterized it accurately. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I've not been a part of this discussion and have no involvement here. But your "my way is the only correct way" attitude is apparent from the discuss above and your comments to me. They are not remotely helpful in resolving this, or any issue. This is not a battleground or a place to wright great wrongs, as you know. Tone down the polemics please. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I'm actually simply asking you to acknowledge the existence of a dispute. From my perspective (and probably that of many editors who think this article has serious NPOV problems), consistent reversion of our edits to the content of the article, dismissal of our POV concerns, and then dismissal of the idea that there even is a POV dispute looks a lot like "my way is the only correct way."

When you read through a discussion in which several editors express the opinion that the article has POV problems, and then write that there is "general consensus" that there are no POV problems, that looks a lot like "my way or the highway." I'd just like you (and other editors involved here) to recognize that there is a dispute here, and not to act as if the dispute does not exist. There's been next to no "give-and-take" here. When one side takes a maximalist view (e.g., systematically removing reference to any intelligence analyst or cybersecurity expert who has expressed doubt about the US government's case), it's very difficult for that give-and-take to exist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we're at the point where Arbcom expected one of our Admins to step in and issue another block to the recidivist disruptive editor. The first one didn't seem to do the trick, and nobody has any appetite for a long AE discussion. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Trump administration section

This SECOND(!) removal is rather surprising. It involves FOUR types of violations. Besides being (1) edit warring and a blatant (2) disregard for WP:BRD, it's also a clear (3) violation of the discretionary sanctions posted at the top of this page, and lastly (4) violates Preserve (fix rather than delete content and sources).

JFG, please self-revert and start a section here to discuss the matter. I agree that it's a bit confusing, so don't give up. An option is to convince other editors to move it here and work on it, and THEN restore it, but get that agreement first.

A few questions to ponder: Would that section, or its contents, be more appropriate somewhere else in the article? Can it be covered in some other section? Is it already covered elsewhere in the article? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I'll revert. Wasn't technically a DS violation though. But certainly per BRD it's better to discuss. I'm just too tired to discuss it. I don't understand what it means at all, and reading the sources hasn't helped me. If VM or another editor can make sense of it, I'll be grateful for an explanation. I'm not the right person to do the rewrite, given I'm clueless on what message this prose is supposed to convey. — JFG ^talk 22:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case, whatever it means, it belongs in the Donald Trump section below, or perhaps a subsection of that. — JFG ^talk 22:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Totally understandable. Get some rest. There's no rush. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, this paragraph is important and belongs to the page - agree. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Do you understand what this paragraph means? If you do, kindly explain it to me, because I still can't make any sense of it. — JFG ^talk 01:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That one? OK, it tells that "Trump administration ... was unsuccessful in getting help from the FBI" to disprove news reports about connections of Trump (or his top managers) with Russian officials during the election campaign. If it was not sufficiently clear, that should be written better - agree. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, if that's the message, it sounds pretty minor and undue commentary. I still think it can be removed without damaging the article. Besides, in that section, it's completely out of context; if we keep it, that should go in the whole section on inquiries about potential Trump team collusion with Russia. I have no time today, but please go ahead if you feel in writing mood… — JFG ^talk 06:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• The attempts to suppress the press by Trump administration (as relates to the case of "Russian interference") is not anything minor. To the contrary, this must be expanded and explained better. I do not think anyone would be opposed to rewriting and possibly extending this, but removing as you just did [13] is not the way. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't even really figure out what that section is supposed to be about. It says it's about the Trump administration, but then it discusses Nunes. It's just poorly written, and it's unclear what, if anything, it adds to the article. I'm all for balance, so including how the Trump administration has reacted to the scandal would be important. However, this section just needs replacement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Crowdstrike report on Ukraine in lead - misleading language and undue weight

I've removed an addition of two new sentences in the lead section about CrowdStrike revising a prior report. I think it's undue weight and misleading, and I'll explain why.

• More importantly, the relevance is attenuated and the wording is misleading. The text added refers to "the data had been misrepresented" - implying that the report was about the U.S. election interference.
  • But the sources actually say that "the data" and "the report" were about a completely different CrowdStrike report, about the war between Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists and a specifically to hacking into a "Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers." CrowdStrike revised its estimate downward, from saying "Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers" to new figures of "15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations." Again, has zero to do with U.S. election interference.
  • Thus, the new language misleadingly implies that CrowdStrike changed its conclusions relating to the source of the cyberattacks against the U.S. That is simply not true.
• Given the attenuated/very indirect connection, including this text in the lead section is undue. The addition of the text gives 2 of the 20 sentences in the lead (a full 10%) to CrowdStrike's amendment. The lead should be reserved for the most significant developments. This is not one of them. Coverage of the revision has been minimal.
• It's also undue weight because CrowdStrike was one of many cybersecurity firms to come to the same conclusion. Fidelis, Mandiant, SecureWorks and ThreatConnect said the same thing. To call out CrowdStrike in the lead section smacks of cherry-picking.

-- Neutrality^talk 04:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think this is a misrepresentation of the source by Allen Nozick (talk · contribs). They inserted the following: "CrowdStrike has since revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign". However, the quoted source tells something opposite: CrowdStrike representative(s) insisted on their conclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Neutrality's observations. Even if it had been true, which it wasn't, there are many other experts who independently concluded the Russians were behind the hacks. Page 35 of the dossier even states very clearly that Trump's people paid the hackers who did the hacking of the DNC. (I am not suggesting we include that, at least not yet, but the FBI is now using that dossier as their "roadmap" for further investigations. That's how much they trust it as an accurate source.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Have you read both sources? . voa writes that "U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.". Far from being "misleading" the language I used could hardly have been more faithful to the source. As for the "cherry picking" and the "undue weight", I can't accept the argument. Crowdstrike is leading among the cybersecurity companies supporting the Russian theory. Experts who do not reach the same conclusion, like Jeffrey Carr for instance, are not even cited. For the sake of neutrality I think that when one of the main accusers is called into question by no less than Voice of America and IISS, this should be mentioned. I am not the only one to hold this view.--Allen Nozick (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, do you have solid evidence that "Trump's people paid the hackers who did the hacking of the DNC"? This is a very serious accusation that shoud not be made lightly. Of course, if you had that evidence, it would be our moral duty to publish it. Regards.--Allen Nozick (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Allen Nozick, did you read my whole comment? I provided the link to the source. Please read that source, just so you know what's happening in the world, and what the FBI's "roadmap" says. Things will make a lot more sense. We aren't at the point where we'll include that yet, but maybe we will soon. All we need is secondary RS to mention it. I suspect they already exist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Allen - please don't restore content that has been challenged at talk on policy-based grounds. When three editors take an opposite view from you, when those views are expressed in specific detail on the talk page, and no other editor supports your position, the correct course is usually to continue discussion and re-evaluate your own view, not to unilaterally revert to restore challenged content. This is doubly true on this particular page.

As for your comment here, it's not responsive to my comment above. The sources reflect that the Crowdstrike report in question was on Russian malware used to attack Ukrainian assets and basically had nothing to do with the U.S. election interference; this has almost no direct relevance, let along "lead-worthy" relevance, to the U.S. election interference. It's a revision to one report on a completely separate topic by one cybersecurity firm (among many). Given this, it's no surprise that this got very little attention in the reliable sources. No coverage from AP, AFP, Reuters, UPI, or other major wire services. No reports or even mentions in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. No attention from serious scholars or even respected commentators. This is basically an enormous red herring. Neutrality^talk 03:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Revised" what? The source by Allen tells about revising an entirely different claim about Ukrainian artillery: "The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS." My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Let's suppose you are right and there's no connection whatsoever. Then, how do you explain that, in their first sentence, voanews write "U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign."? Are you suggesting they are trying to mislead the public, me included? If not, could you please clarify?--Allen Nozick (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Like they say in Gorky, "when it comes to UNDUE, just un-DON'T." Crowdstrike's importance to Russian Interference is on the order of e-9. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Allen Nozick, you nailed it. Among Trump's early moves were actions to bring the VOA under his personal control, something which we have always avoided. Dictatorships do that. Just this one search will show that concerns about this have been voiced by several, including the Los Angeles Times. Maddow reported what happened: "...the CEOs office this week at the Voice of America was taken over by two 20-something political operatives from the Trump campaign." They answer to Trump, so the independence of VOA is gone. It is presumably now his voice when necessary, and if there is any subject where he will use the VOA to spin the narrative, it's this one.

We used to trust it to be neutral, just as we used to trust Wikileaks to be neutral. Now the VOA speaks for Trump personally, and Wikileaks proved during the campaign that it speaks for Putin (and the 35-page dossier indicates Wikileaks was working for Trump's campaign as well). In both instances, VOA and Wikileaks can be used for the personal purposes of Trump and Putin respectively. BTW, several RS have commented on the dossier's statements about the Putin-Trump-Wikileaks coordination to rig the election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any issues with VOA, but the Ukrainian howitzers, and CrowdStrike's claims regarding their casualty figures, have nothing to do with the DNC hacks or this article. If VOA claims otherwise then it's time to look for other sources. Geogene (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are two separate issues. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, we should be very careful not to propagate conspiracy theories. I am not a Trump fan but I cannot accept the assertion that "Now the VOA speaks for Trump personally" without incontrovertible evidence. I fail to see the logic behind it. It would certainly have been much more effective to replace all high ranking officers in the Intel community by his men, which he hasn't done so far. I am also growing skeptical about Trump's alleged collusion with Putin. It doesn't seem to fit well with the recent airstrikes on Syria.--Allen Nozick (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Any WP:OR conclusions about the new editorial policy at The Voice of America based on comments by Rachel Maddow don't belong here. Any connection between changes in administration at VOA alleged by Ms. Maddow ought to be based strictly on what she herself has said, and the guidelines in WP:BIASED should be applied, given Ms. Maddow's history of antagonism to the Republican party and support for the Democratic party (the party damaged by those leaked documents, regardless of their provenance). loupgarous (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, I had hoped for some sort of response from you. loupgarous, since you seem to agree with me that The Voice of America is still a reliable source, do you also agree with my reinserting my edit citing them?--Allen Nozick (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Allen. I got pinged. What type of response would be helpful? Also about your intention to reinsert your edit, be very careful. You have tried it three times and been reverted by two different editors. You'll need a good discussion and solid consensus before another attempt will be seen as anything other than slow edit warring and a DS violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Allen, while I agree that the press haven't made their case about VOA being suddenly corrupted overnight, and I strongly question the need to present this narrative in this article now when there hasn't been time for VOA to change its editorial stance (the narrative is still largely driven by editorial comments like Maddow's, not objective news reportage), we don't seem to have a consensus on either side. But we need more WP:RS sources to support our side of the case before we make more changes. Part of that is going to be examining sources supporting the existing version to determine whether they really do meet WP:RS standards.
• The current atmosphere in the press regarding alleged Russian interference with the 2016 elections has unsettling tones of churnalism, partisan political advocacy, and strong POV (as opposed to adherence to the canons of journalism touching on objectivity. Would the Washington Post have gone with the narrative presented by the Nixon intelligence community - which was mentioned in two Articles of Impeachment drawn up by the House Judiciary Committee as being illegally involved in surveillance of Nixon's political enemies? We don't have Woodward, Bernstein or Bradlee to be skeptical about what political appointees in the intelligence community have been saying. But that's the mainstream press we have. I'd say it's appropriate now to seek to insert balance in presentation of the facts. We do need more discussion, if only to convince other editors to increase the credibility of this article by allowing a balanced presentation of the facts. According to WP:NOT, we shouldn't be breathlessly presenting every charge made by, for example, Rachel Maddow, because we're not the press and wikipedia isn't obliged to follow the press's cycles of story coverage. We are obliged to strive for Neutral Point of View, even when the majority of the press does not. loupgarous (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement in lead

It is very atypical for an article to have its second sentence based solely on a long statement. Hence it is now in a quote box. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That quote is part of the lead and needs to remain in its location, so I have restored it, but indented it as a quote, per MoS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The quote is far too long for the lede. If you want to include the quote, put it in the body of the article, where it belongs. I've paraphrased the most important element of the quote, that Russia sought to favor Trump over Clinton. I've also moved the specific allegations made by US intelligence to the first paragraph, and moved the Russian denials to the first paragraph. At least now, one can get an idea of what the subject is about from the first paragraph, rather than having to wade through a lengthy, out-of-place quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you made a series of large deletions which seriously violate WP:PRESERVE, so I have reverted the whole lot. You need to get consensus before making any edit which could be controversial, especially in an article like this one. Remember that this article is under discretionary sanctions and you can get blocked for breathing too hard or blinking once too many times, so to speak /s. We can't go back and forth with controversial edits here. They have to be right. Uncontroversial edits can be made at any time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the material I deleted was recently added. It fell into one of three categories:

• Long, undue sections about subjects that, at most, might merit an extremely short mention (e.g., the section about Carter Page).
• Terribly written material that was confusing to read, and didn't even have a clear point (e.g., the Trump Administration section).
• Redundant material. A lot of the things are repeated throughout the article.

I also reorganized the lede to remove the long, out-of-place quotation from US intelligence, and replace it with a short, to-the-point paraphrase. I also moved the specific allegations made by US intelligence to the first paragraph, as well as the Russian denial. With those changes, the first paragraph of the lede actually gave an idea of what the article is about.

Since you raised DS, I'll remind you that consensus goes both ways: if a lot of bloat is added to the article, and someone else pares it down (as I did), you're supposed to seek consensus before reinstating it. Do you actually feel that the long section of Carter Page, for example, is warranted? I don't see any reasoning for your reinstatement of that material.

Basically, this article has become a coatrack for every bit of Russia/Trump material any editor wants to add (unless, of course, the material is critical of the allegations against Russia, or of Russia-Trump ties - even Le Monde and the Süddeutsche Zeitung become suspect sources when they publish such material). The coatrack nature of the article begins right in the first paragraph, with a clunky, long, verbatim quote from a US intelligence report. Why not paraphrase this quote? Unclear. The whole article is written in that way, and if you add back in every long, marginally relevant paragraph that someone feels like adding, it'll just get worse over time. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer is not understanding. He wants something extremely unusual for Wikipedia. It must be justified specifically. We don't put any quotations like that in the lead. It is not proper or needed to be there. It doesn't belong at all, in the slightest and must be removed immediately. This user's edits to this article must now be scrutinized by other editors. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the recent de-bloating edits by Thucydides411 and Shiftchange, which tend to make the article clearer and more informative. Yet more trimming is deserved. — JFG ^talk 08:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I was about to revert, but didn't need to. After other editors objected to the POV flags, you're resorting to the slash-and-burn approach of editing? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Israel for the Berlin Christmas market truck attack committed by a Tunesian small-time con-artist and drug dealer Can you prove this? Give a source or strike your comment immediately per WP:BLP. Of course, voice of his master speaking. What the fuck does this mean? Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The POV tags belong at the top, regardless of the edits I made to de-bloat the article. There is a heavy dispute about the neutrality of this article, as everyone here should be able to acknowledge. That means the POV tags are entirely factual and appropriate.

I don't consider removing long, recently added sections about tangentially related subjects (e.g., Carter Page gets two paragraphs - why?) to be "slash-and-burn." If editors weren't so quick to turn each week's report into an entirely new section of the article, this sort of cleanup wouldn't be necessary.

The intelligence section is obviously unbalanced. It specifically leaves out every former intelligence official who has expressed doubt, not on the basis of some analysis of the relevance or authority of that official, but purely on the basis of which "side" the official supports. Binney is a highly experienced and respected intelligence analyst. He was quoted in one of the US' pre-eminent political magazines, by a well-known political commentator. Yet, for pretty transparent reasons, his statements have been removed from the article. They don't fit the narrative this article is supposed to push.

I think this is actually pretty sad for Wikipedia. Writing articles that state your personal political views may feel good, but doing so undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia over the long term. People simply aren't going to take Wikipedia seriously on US politics-related articles if they're written is such a blatantly partisan manner. When we're at a point that editors like myself, who argue for some sort of balance, get called Trump surrogates or Russian shills (full disclosure: I'm neither a Trump supporter nor a Russian, not that there would be anything wrong with Trump supporters or Russians editing this article), you know something is wrong with Wikipedia's culture. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to refer everyone to our article on McCarthyism, the Red Scare and the Church Committee. Why are the same techniques of unproven accusations of treason described in those articles being embraced in the project's articles about any living person? I know I'm entering the discussion late, but I'm honestly surprised we have an article about any living person which reproduces allegations unproven by an intelligence community which has been reprimanded publicly by Congressional investigators for abusing their power for political ends. If WP:BLP means anything, it means we take very special care to avoid repeating errors made by a press which isn't bound by WP:BLP in its reporting. loupgarous (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

which reproduces allegations unproven by an intelligence community which has been reprimanded publicly by Congressional investigators for abusing their power for political ends. Weren’t these reprimands made 40 years ago against entirely different people. You appear to be suggesting that living people should be branded with the faults of others decades past. Pardon me for saying so, but perhaps you should reflect on your words in re McCarthyism. Just a polite suggestion. Objective3000 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Two former electronic surveillance and counter-surveillance technologists recently released a report on how the US intelligence community still abuses its assets to involve itself in our nation's internal politics. The article describes how CALEA, the FISA court system and other laws meant to circumvent Americans' Fourth Amendment privacy rights, as well as the use of our nation's intelligence partners in the Five Eyes system to circumvent restrictions on warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans goes on today, and went on during the final days of the Obama Administration, as it did in other administrations. The US intelligence community has never stopped playing politics and being used as political tools.

When you cite statements from the US intelligence community uncritically, essentially giving them a wikipedia article in which their assertions are treated as WP:RS while deleting dissenting opinions, it's a POV issue. When our articles paraphrase the original text by US intelligence community officials using terms not used in the original text which have more extreme emotional content (using "attack" instead of the word the official used, "dismiss", to describe the Trump transition team's reaction to statements by one or more US intelligence community officials), that's a POV issue, too.

And, seen objectively, it's difficult to describe the US intelligence community's publicizing the product of ongoing counter-intelligence investigations about one of the two candidates in the 2016 Presidential campaign, and continuing to do so as anything but McCarthyist. The boogeyman brandished by the news reports citing these reports is even essentially the same - Russia. The only thing I have to say to the press for cooperating in an act of unprofessional political sabotage by senior members of the US intelligence community is what Joseph McCarthy was told by Joseph N. Welch during the Army–McCarthy hearings - "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" loupgarous (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

First, I looked at the link at the beginning of your edit and saw that it was too absurd a source to read. After that, I skipped most of your text and went to the end. Your famous quote at the end is an absolutely wonderful quote. It’s just fantastic in the way it cut down McCarthy and his puppeteer, Roy Cohn. That’s why it should be very rarely used, as should Godwin-like refs. My point is that you are using the worst events in history as comparisons in, what appears to be, a less than judicious manner. Not everything is black and white. I don't see anything here that rises to the level of McCarthyism. Your edits appear to lack any nuance. That makes them less than convincing as editors are likely to ignore such. Try to make a case without drudging up long-past monstrosities and applying them to current events. That could be considered a BLP vio, as well as resulting in other editors rolling their eyes. Just my opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please show where I accused any wikipedia editor of McCarthyism. I did nothing of the sort. Read what I wrote carefully:

• "And, seen objectively, it's difficult to describe the US intelligence community's publicizing the product of ongoing counter-intelligence investigations about one of the two candidates in the 2016 Presidential campaign, and continuing to do so as anything but McCarthyist."

and

• "::I'd like to refer everyone to our article on McCarthyism, the Red Scare and the Church Committee. Why are the same techniques of unproven accusations of treason described in those articles being embraced in the project's articles about any living person? "

Whether you wish to admit it or not, this article does treat a McCarthyist narrative as though it were allowable under WP:BLP. Whether the subject of this article is Donald Trump or (for example) Ward Churchill, the person is entitled to the same protections in our articles outlined in WP:BLP. That the subject of this article might be featured in a churnalistic press cycle doesn't relieve our responsibility to be responsible in discussing living persons.

Accusing me of committing an WP:BLP violation by advocating we actually obey the guidance in WP:BLP's rare irony, not to mention WP:WIKILAWYERING. Accusing me of calling anyone in wikipedia "McCarthyist" simply because they carelessly cite McCarthyist narratives from some members of the US intelligence community in our article is a WP:CIVIL violation, because it's a false accusation. Drop the stick, please. loupgarous (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no stick to drop. But, I'm done trying to help you. Luck. Objective3000 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Re:loupgarous there are some (occasionally humorous) articles that discuss the "McCarthyism" issue in the media, and I think it'd be worthwhile to bring some into this article, since this has been one of the reactions to this whole affair. -Darouet (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Bloat, spin-off sub-articles, and building the encyclopedia

Just to be clear, I'm not against paraphrasing. The quote happens to be very comprehensive, while succinctly mentioning key points in the article. That's good. It is unusual to include such a large quote in the lead, so if anyone wants to paraphrase it, while retaining all the key points, and using the same ref as the citation, that would be great.

There seems to be too much concern about article "bloat". This is a meta article, and such articles are SUPPOSED to bloat until they literally burst, and a normal procedure is then followed which does not violate PRESERVE. As each section gets bigger, we keep an eye on it. If its size creates a weight problem, we spin off the content, leaving a summary. Using the lead of the new spin-off sub-article as the summary in the main meta article is often a good practice. Each summary gets its own paragraph and "main" link to the new spin-off sub-article.

This is a huge and growing topic, and there will be many spin-off articles, so don't hesitate to do what we're supposed to do, which is to BUILD (add), not DESTROY (delete), the encyclopedia. We want to document what RS say, and we can't allow deletionism to keep this large-subject article too small, at the cost of ignoring many good sources and much good content.

Such attempts to squeeze a growing foot into a small shoe creates many problems, and the determination of what gets left out becomes an exercise in POV deletionism and gross violations of NPOV, because then its competing opinions about weight which rule, and that's not right. Edit wars increase and the atmosphere gets poisonous. If good content is found in a RS, it's potentially eligible for inclusion, and editors on both sides should allow such inclusion. When dealing with large topics, it's better to err on the side of too much content, rather than too little. We are supposed to document the sum TOTAL of ALL knowledge, as found in RS. Let's do that. Strive to build. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BR and I note that if we stick to NPOV presentation of what mainstream reports say, the narrative will fall into a consistent and orderly form. The problems arise when fringe or non-noteworthy or self-serving commentary is cherrypicked from among the thousands of such sources readily available online. E.G. all the former pundits and one-time somebodies whose snippets were briefly enshrined here. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There are tools to express your grievances, including WP:DRN and WP:RFC. At this point, some of your grievances have been settled by RFC, regardless of whether you agree with the decision of the closing admin. Some of your other grievances have not been, so if you feel strongly about them I would encourage you to use the processes. But repeatedly making edits that you have to know will be controversial (and probably reverted) is probably not the best tact.--137.54.15.236 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Quote in the lead

Does the quote belong in the lead? Should it be perhaps moved into the body of the article?

" 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 Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. ”

References

I've not seen such treatment (block quote) is the leads of other articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree - it should be paraphrased. The concern I guess is that someone might try to remove this info entirely from the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

(Repeating what I wrote above...) Just to be clear, I'm not against paraphrasing. The quote happens to be very comprehensive, while succinctly mentioning key points in the article. That's good. It is unusual to include such a large quote in the lead, so if anyone wants to paraphrase it, while retaining all the key points, and using the same ref as the citation, that would be great. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What are the key points? Paraphrasing implies not repeating every point made in the quote. Here's what I wrote earlier:

A US intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and aimed to harm the latter's electoral chances.

That hits what I consider the key points. If there are nuances that need to be explained further, they can go in the body of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's a very rough paraphrase:

• The intelligence community posited several aspects to the interference: Putin ordered it with the goal of undermining faith in the democratic process and hurting Clinton, thus hampering her ability to become president. They also assessed that Putin clearly favored Trump. The intelligence community had "high confidence in these judgments."

That's the gist of the key points in the quote. Feel free to improve it, especially where I might have gotten it wrong. I think the quote is so good that I'm going to include it in the full ref, rather than in the body. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That's still far too long. It's not so much a question of having quotation marks or not, but rather the length at which the quotation is presented. There's no need for more than one sentence on it. This is the lede, where we're supposed to be succinctly summarizing the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Each point is rather important and is developed (or should be) in the article, therefore it must be mentioned in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the original quote:

"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. We have high confidence in these judgments."

BullRangifer (talk)

References

I would probably go with the slight expansion on TCD's version:

• "A US intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. It further stated that an "influence campaign" ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed to harm Clinton's electoral chances and thus sway the election."

This adds the role that Putin played, as it seems important. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

How about this?

A US intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances.

It hits all the same points (I think "harm Clinton's electoral chances" implies "sway the election"), and is a bit shorter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's better than my version. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The intelligence folks are masters of concision. This is a case where, for this long article, the quote is better than anything WP editors could use in its place. e.g. the most recent omits "undermined the US democracy". Let's just use the quote. It's the touchstone for the article that follows. Kinda like the 10 commandments, only better. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing against the quote, but let's move it into the body. It sticks out like a sore thumb in the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Ten commandments." That is rich. -Darouet (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, go ahead and replace the quote with the summary. I have already included the whole quote in a ref (not body) further down, so readers can see it if they want. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Done; thanks! Here's the edit: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Addition: I removed the statement "... and undermine American democracy" (diff) as it was not part of the agreed-upon version. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Appreciate your efforts. Good re 'alleged' in 1st sentence and 'high confidence' in 3rd. 2nd sentence has 'concluded' though as I read the report the 'leaks' assessment was with the same 'high confidence' as the other points. ("We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.") Can you adjust? Humanengr (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nunes

@Volunteer Marek:: "Straight-up dishonest misrepresentation of the source?" No, it wasn't, just the wrong word order. Here's what I meant to write: On April 6, 2017, Nunes temporarily recused himself from the Russia investigation after the House Ethics Committee announced that it would investigate the allegations against him of unauthorized disclosure of classified information against him. Representative Mike Conaway will be assuming control of the investigation. Not the most elegant piece of writing, but I'm not a fan of Nunes's shenanigans cloak-and-dagger theatrics, tippytoeing through the WH tulips, in the moonlight … (or was it a dark and storm night?). WaPo: The House Ethics Committee released a statement Thursday saying it had “determined to investigate” allegations that "Nunes may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information, in violation of House Rules, law, regulations, or other standards of conduct."Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I got it - and apologized. Two confusions rolled into one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Apology accepted, but it wasn’t really necessary; I jumbled the sentence. I was surprised, is all, to be mistaken for someone who would misrepresent sources to whitewash the actions of a Trump minion. That was a first! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please be gender neutral. I call them "man-nanigans" SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop trolling: here's the etymology of "shenanigans". What's next, demanding that hepatitis be renamed "she-patitis"? Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nah, that wasn't trolling. See below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hann-anigans? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I would settle for she-nunesgans, if you think that would not violate any policies? SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

17 Agencies

The lede currently states,

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's personal account, and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks.

The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is misleading, since only a few of those 17 agencies actually had anything to do with investigating the email leaks. As many people have pointed out, Coast Guard Intelligence has little to say about DNC email leaks. As far as I can tell, "17 agencies" is just a polemical line used in the debate over alleged Russian hacking. Why is it in the article? I'd suggest simply removing "representing 17 intelligence agencies" from the text. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That's OR. We follow what the RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

How is it OR? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"since only a few of those 17 agencies actually had anything to do with investigating the email leaks....just a polemical line used..." How is that not OR? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is that the statement is about the 17 agencies who "jointly stated that..." You are talking about "investigating the email leaks." It doesn't address that. We'd need special insight into how they agreed to make such a joint statement. All we know is that they agreed "that Russia hacked..." That's why your concern is OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

How would leaving out the misleading "17 intelligence agencies" line introduce any OR into the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That it's "misleading" is your OR. RS state it, so we report it. Without RS, we can't speculate on how they came to that decision. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that not all 17 agencies were involved in the investigation or report is not my OR. For example, Zeit stated that

"Not all 17 intelligence agencies participated in preparing the assessment." [14]

I don't see why we should include a misleading clause about 17 agencies. It has its origins in polemics (it comes originally from the Clinton campaign), and it doesn't add anything to the article. In fact, its only contribution would be to misinform readers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What part of "jointly stated that Russia hacked ..." is misleading? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The "..." part, funnily enough. Here's the change I propose:

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's personal account, and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks.

We know (from reliable sources) that not all 17 agencies were involved in the report, and also that the "17 intelligence agencies" line comes from a line Clinton used in the third presidential debate. It's just a misleading line, and I don't see why we're repeating it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

None of it is misleading. How's you can tell is that instead of demonstrating how it's misleading, the POV editor just asks you loaded questions. Not likely to advance rational discussion. Thuc's suggestion is twisting words just like in the cold war era. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, what does the country’s top intelligence official’s testimony to Congress have to do with the Clinton campaign, as you just suggested? Objective3000 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I don't understand your question. I'm asking why we include the phrase "representing 17 intelligence agencies" when discussing the joint DNI/DHS statement. The "17 intelligence agencies" line was originally a polemic (it comes from Clinton in the 3rd presidential debate), and it's not even in the sources we cite about the joint DHS/DNI statement. For example, here's what the source we use right now (the Guardian) says about the statement:

“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” said the office of the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a joint statement.

When describing the statement, the Guardian doesn't say "representing 17 intelligence agencies." Why are we adding this additional statement in? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the SW deutsche daily again?? It's pointless to respond to these taunts. If there is RS, we would have been shown the RS verification, and we could evaluate the source, due weight, and other policy-related concerns. Without a substantive basis for that kind of assertion, it's best not to be drawn into more Q+A because it's not focused on article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- the proposed change is reasonable:

• The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated ...

"17 agencies" is excessive intricate detail outside of the scope of an encyclopedia article that is supposed to follow summary style. It does not help readers' understanding, and in fact may hinder it. As in "which 17 agencies"? "why do I care about the 17 agencies"? Etc. The two main ones are sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This is unconvincing, because the omission of the 17 is being proposed for the purpose of deprecating the finding and insinuating some unstated doubt among the 17 agencies that determined the facts. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I did a quick search and the topic of "17 agencies" appears only in the lead. If it's not discussed in the article, it does not belong in the lead in the first place, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a stand-alone mini article. And the omission is being proposed for concision and reduction of irrelevant intricate detail. Imputing other motives appears far fetched. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

So add it to the article. We just say what the RS say. Objective3000 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

We are editors, not automatons to parrot exactly what the sources say. In this case, the omission of what I contend is intricate detail would help readers' understanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the source we cite right now for this sentence ([15]) does not mention 17 intelligence agencies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If that concerns you, check a dozen other mainstream -- not bavarian daily -- RS and find the strongest 3 and bring them to the table mabel. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ke, You're new around here and I'm sure you're a good diligent editor, but if you review the talk page archives and edit and Arbcom Enforcement records relating to this article, you will see that there's no imputing, impugning, or any other im-words here. It's acknowledged and explicit POV being pushed on the theory that the mainstream sources do not represent the weight of the mainstream view. And yes, we do "parrot" what RS say on a detail that at least one editor insists is of paramount significance. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the detail on "17 agencies" is irrelevant and potentially confusing. I don't believe it belongs because we are supposed to follow summary style. And if an editor believes that it's of "paramount" importance, why is this importance not conveyed in the body of the article?

Also see ...being proposed for the purpose of (...) insinuating some unstated doubt...., which was posted below my comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous RS which mention 17 agencies, but there are actually only 16 under the leadership of the ODNI. I'm still not sure why the RS say 17 agencies, unless they are mistakenly including the ODNI as one, or are including some other intelligence agency. The Oct. 7, 2016 "joint statement" includes the DHS ("Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security").

Whatever the case may be, we could just as well include a RS which does mention the "17 agencies" part. Here's a good one: NPR -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As Time noted (source), only a few of the agencies were actually involved in investigating the email leaks. Rather than trying to find additional sources that we could use to justify including the misleading "17 intelligence agencies" wording, I think we should just get rid of the phrase. It doesn't add anything to the article, and it gives the false impression that 17 agencies were somehow involved in investigating the email leaks. I'm not proposing to remove the DNI/DHS statement, but simply to remove the "17 intelligence agencies" phrase. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you have just inadvertently resolved the confusion. We are referring to the Oct. 7, 2016 "joint statement", while you are confusing it with the January assessment given to Obama and Trump. The Time link is about the latter. These are two very different things. You still confuse your OR concept of "involved in investigating" (we don't know anything about that) with what Time describes as "Not all 17 intelligence agencies participated in preparing the assessment. An unclassified version of the report is expected to be released on Friday morning, two officials said." The "assessment" they are referring to is the one given to Obama and Trump in January. It also included a short summary of the 35-page dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The two - the DNI/DHS statement and the subsequent report - are related. From Time's reporting, we know that only a few agencies were actually involved in the investigation. The source we actually use to describe the statement (the Guardian), doesn't make any mention of 17 agencies. At the time the Guardian article was written, as far as I can tell, no newspapers were reporting about "17 intelligence agencies." That phrase comes from the 3rd presidential debate, as a polemic that Clinton used to try to underline the DNI/DHS statement. I really don't see why we should include a phrase that will lead many readers to a dubious (read, almost certainly false) impression about the investigation into the email leaks. What's the point? -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Case closed, mission accomplished. Finito. Pass the mustard. What shall we work on next? SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer and Objective3000: I agree with Thucydides411 and K.e.coffman that, since some sources mention "17 agencies" but many others don't, and since this isn't discussed in the article body, it is reasonable to remove this statement from the lead. The editorial decision to include it has no halo around it. I am also amazed that we still open the lead of this article with a long quote from the intelligence agencies - we might as well ask them to write the article themselves. -Darouet (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed it; please see diff.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "17 intelligence agencies" is flatly contradicted in Time. Last time I checked, they are a mainstream news source which is WP:RS. The source of the confusion appears to be that members of all 17 members of the US intel community made these allegations, and may have done so without the consent of their employers ("going rogue" is a frequently-encountered meme in the press recently to describe those members of the intelligence community who illegally "unmasked" members of the Trump transition team whose electronic communications were intercepted by the NSA and other agencies).

I fail to see the benefit of incorporating widely disputed allegations that all 17 members of the US intel community concurred in making these charges in one of our articles. Mentioning the allegations which aren't disputed between different WP:RS sources is more prudent and acting in the spirit of WP:BLP. loupgarous (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Being a bit pedantic, but that was Reuters published in Time. Frankly, though, that adds even more weight to it as I see Reuters as better than Time. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

B L what? WP reflects the weight of RS description. Since many RS report the conclusion of the US intelligence assessment as a whole, perhaps you can propose language that accurately conveys that fact without using the number 17, if that's what bothers you. The Time bit says that not all agencies participated in the preparation -- that's always the case. Not all agencies have assets or expertise related to each finding of the National Security Assessment. However there's no RS that verifies any dissent among the agencies that jointly determined that the Russians interfered, etc. If what bothers you is actually the fact that this was the US intelligence assessment -- as a whole -- then I think that without a source to verify dissent among the agencies, you are out of luck. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It's WP:OR to say in one of our articles that since no US intelligence agency has published dissent from the agencies which have announced their opinion that Russia interfered in the 2016 United States elections, that all US intelligence agencies unanimously agree in that assessment. We're not allowed to make logical leaps like that in wikipedia articles. loupgarous (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Straw man. Counterfactual. You rebut what nobody said. So what? SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There are guidelines which indicate how we cite sources, and how we judge the reliability of sources. If you can find an actual WP-reliable source which explicitly says "every agency in the US intelligence community believes Russia interfered in the 2016 United States elections" with the support of verifiable facts that don't use WP:WEASEL language, go for it. There is no such source which isn't indulging in editorial comment, and we always identify editorial comment as such, not as factual reporting.

We ought to report what the sources we cite actually say, which isn't what you seem to think it is. It's appropriate for article to report what appears in the mainstream press and that only, accurately describing any caveats and evasions in those statements, and also intelligently considering the WP:BIASED nature of those statements based on prior statements made in each source. That is how we decide what the weight of those allegations may be. loupgarous (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Straw man. Counterfactual. SPECIFICO talk 03:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

First sentence / para

The article opens rather abruptly with:

• "The United States Intelligence Community has officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections".

References

Should it instead refer to what the article is about? As in:

• The Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the United States Intelligence Community's assessment that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections. Or:
• The Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 United States elections that resulted in the election of President Donald Trump.

Or something similar. It's just not how Wiki articles typically open. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Feedback is that you're insinuating the statement that the interference is an insinuation and that the article is about an insinuation or about the agencies that discovered the interference. This would be like starting the Gravity article by saying this article is about an apple that fell on Sir Isaac Newton's noggin. You're welcome to join the discussion and the editing here of course, but please review the history of the text and previous discussions and settled issues here. This problems with what you're proposing have been discussed at length many times and have been resolved with firm consensus. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you may want to totally revamp that comment, not make it at all, or start all over again in a more constructive manner. Right now it's very confusingly worded and rather aggressive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternative version of above, per BullRangifer request -- "The proposed change insinuates that the Russian interference is merely an "allegation". This is contrary to long talk page threads that have endorsed the mainstream reporting that it is a conclusion and that it has been determined The proposed text would be like starting the Gravity article by saying this article is about an apple that fell on Sir Isaac Newton's noggin. Any new proposal should take account of the history of the article text and previous talk page discussions and settled issues here. The issues that editor Coffman raises have been discussed at length many times and have been resolved with firm consensus. Consensus may change, but before proposing such change, we can expect editors to bear in mind the previous work that a large number of editors have contributed to get to the version that's proposed to be scrapped. We've also seen both Thucydides and Coffman violate 1RR within the space of a few hours. It's March Madness in April. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What would be an alternate opening? This is similar to my question about the quote in the lead -- it's just not how Wiki articles open. They open with "The Subject is [this thing]", not with a declarative sentence. Have any other alternatives been proposed? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, what about starting with what led to the conclusion that something was going on?

• "Due to a number of factors, the United States Intelligence Community concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections. These factors included the hacking of the DNC, the release of hacked emails by Wikileaks, events which were postulated in a timeline in a 35--page dossier, many of which have since been corroborated, contacts between Russian individuals and persons in the Trump campaign, and direct and incidental intelligence gathered by American and foreign intelligence agencies.

It starts out in a less abrupt fashion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I think both of the options you suggested are fine. The first option focuses perhaps a bit too squarely on US intelligence, since others (e.g., American politicians) have made accusations of Russian interference as well. For that reason, the second option is perhaps a bit better. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In the second option, I'd replace "that resulted in the election of President Donald Trump" with "to benefit Donald Trump," but perhaps some other reworking would be better. I'm just worried that the sentence might be read to mean that the alleged interference resulted in Trump's election, which I don't think is the intended meaning. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's how it would look with the follow-on sentence:

• The Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government had played in the 2016 United States elections to benefit Donald Trump. Due to a number of factors, the United States Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was involved; these factor included the hacking of the DNC, the release of hacked emails by Wikileaks, and contacts between Russian individuals and the Trump campaign. A US intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chancesand undermine American democracy.

References

This combines the opener with the follow-on suggestion by BullRangife, and is a better transition to the "A US intelligence community assessment expressed...." Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better than what we have now. However, I still strongly believe that we should include the Russian denial in the opening paragraph, along with the allegations by US intelligence. That's a major part of the story that's been tucked away at the end of the third paragraph.

A couple of other points about the proposed wording:

• Even though I proposed it, I'm still not sure about the wording of "to benefit Donald Trump."
• "Vladimir Putin personally ordered" - why not simply, "Vladimir Putin ordered"? The word "personally" is redundant here.
• "Due to a number of factors, ...; these factors included the hacking ..." This seems clunky to me. I'd just give a more straightforward account of the events, and then say that US intelligence has publicly accused Russia of being behind them. "Following Wikileaks' release of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton advisor John Podesta, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks. A US intelligence community assessment ...(unchanged)... Clinton's electoral chances. Russian officials have denied any interference in US elections."

-Thucydides411 (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

One thing I didn't mention, and which might deserve its own talk-page section to discuss: there's no mention in the lede of the effect of the leaked emails. The article is titled "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections," so one would think the lede would at least briefly touch on what about the leaked emails had an effect on the election (e.g., causing Wasserman-Schultz to resign). -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

We have an article which covers such details: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: why shouldn't this article, which purports to be about (alleged) Russian interference, not describe the effects of that interference? Indeed, meddling that fails to have any effect is not actually interference, even if it is intended to be. Furthermore, it is unclear why 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak should uniquely contain that information, when this article should theoretically summarize that article's content. -Darouet (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Specifico's comment below. This isn't the place to get into such speculation, although the evidence suggests that Putin was very successful/effectful. Look at who won the election, and the division created by it. The rigging of an election to successfully elect a super (most) unpopular president against the will of the majority of voters is definitely an "effect".

As far as that sub-article, such articles contain lots of detail which isn't included in the mother article (this one). That's the way it works. It's just a matter of editorial judgment which details are mentioned here. Generally only the big outline gets mentioned here, while the smaller details get included in the sub-article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the "rigging of an election" would be a very serious issue, and were this true the election should be cancelled. However, no such rigging was discovered, despite numerous accusations thereof, recounts, faithless electors, and whatnot. The only "rigging" that is still being discussed is Trump's allegation that illegal immigrants and dead people voted for Clinton… Well that ain't too serious either, is it? Russians didn't rig the election; at best they had some influence on voters via email leaks (if they are indeed behind that) and via RT propaganda. For this latter point, all media broadcast from a particular POV and voters are smart enough to make up their mind, aren't they? And the volume of Russian-sponsored news was certainly far smaller than the volume of negative campaign propaganda from both sides within the US, as is unfortunately that country's political tradition. — JFG ^talk 15:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your OR on "meddling" and "interference" and other topics is not helpful for this discussion. And to what "theory" does your "theoretically" refer? Sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF -- no goodsky. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

With revisions:

• The Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government had played in the 2016 United States elections. Following Wikileaks' release of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton advisor John Podesta, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks. A US intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances and undermine American democracy.

References

Agree with the "personally" -- it's just unneeded wordiness. Not sure that I feel there's a strong need to put Russia's denial in the first para -- of course they would deny it :-). But I could go either way.

I'm slightly more concerned about including "and undermine American democracy" (which was added after I implemented the edit). This is a very strong statement, and implies that "American democracy" is quite easily undermined. I doubt that even the Russians think that can do that. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) This is definitely an improvement. Leaving out "personally" is no problem, at least to me. It's unnecessary. The part about undermining American democracy is quite important to keep. This is about Putin's goal. He is interested in more than just messing with the election. He wants to destabilize American democracy, and it turned out it was much easier to do than he expected. I understand the champagne flowed freely! That's why the cyber warfare hasn't slowed down at all. The Russian military has been very open and described their new warfare doctrine as 3/4 cyber and 1/4 conventional, with the cyber warfare as a constant and non-stop feature. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: I removed it: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please restore it in some manner, as that was Putin's primary goal. Here's the original quote:

• "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. We have high confidence in these judgments.""

BullRangifer (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There is not much to support the contention that "Putin wanted to undermine American democracy". In fact, he repeatedly mocked that assertion whenever questioned, e.g. saying "Does anyone seriously think that Russia can influence the choice of the American people? Is America some kind of banana republic? America is a great power. If I’m wrong, correct me."[16] — JFG ^talk 07:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I support K.e.coffman's proposed lead sentence and will include it in the article. — JFG ^talk 07:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Erledigt with some copyediting to avoid redundancies. — JFG ^talk 08:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Same here. The fact that the ODNI represents seventeen agencies is a fact about the ODNI, not the about the report. The 17 agencies did not all contribute to the report. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I Oppose the proposed wording and request that the lead be returned to the status quo. We have had many discussions rejecting similar wording that cast doubt on the conclusions represented in the vast majority of reliable sources. While the previous wording sounds like breaking news, this can easily be fixed. For example:

  In January 2017, the United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency".- MrX 11:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

ETA: Also, the construct "ARTICLE_TITLE refers to..." is poor writing style.- MrX 12:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I agree that the first two sentences need tweaking, but I think the third is excellent. Also, as The Four Deuces has repeatedly stated, and as I have as well, what intelligence agencies state oder express can be known and is very different from what they internally (and sometimes contradictorily) conclude. Lastly, the removal of the long quote eyesore at the outset of the lead is a welcome development. -Darouet (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, please reflect on whether you have RS to support your assertions "repeatedly stated..." or whether you are repeating personal conjecture, OR, and fringe POV narratives. If you have RS, then your arguments will bear some weight here so it is in your interest to make fact-based and documented assertions that are not just personal concerns. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

According to this logic the BBC and Reuters are "fringe POV." -Darouet (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I also Oppose the new wording. The prominent placement of "alleged" in the first sentence of the article is not neutral to the bulk of reliable source coverage. Some RS's do use the word, but very few seem to be seriously questioning the conclusion. Speaking of "conclusions"...who knows what the IC's internal discussions are about, but this is splitting hairs more than RSs do about the matter. Given the bulk of coverage, it would be genuinely surprising if the internal IC opinions were different from coverage in the press. Insinuating that this difference exists without evidence is original research. Geogene (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the new wording is much better than before. I also share Darouet's concern about private "conclusions" versus public statements. I wouldn't find it at all surprising if internal IC opinions were different from coverage in the press, since that's historically often been the case (these are secretive organizations, after all). But that's a problem in both the old and the new version of the opening paragraph, and the new opening is definitely better. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support the revised wording. No agency 'concluded that 'x'. The 10/7/2016 DNI report stated “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident …”; The 1/6/2017 DNI report stated "high confidence in these judgments" where 'high confidence' indicates "still carry a risk of being wrong". The RS's that reported "concluded" are not 'reliable'. The editors here voting to use 'concluded' wording should arguably be barred as unqualified from editing this or any other article involving such reports. Humanengr (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

So you would be equally fine with some form of "confident that" instead of "concluded"? Geogene (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Midnight massacre

Yesterday, a handful of editors made far-reaching fundamental changes to the article based on a brief and thinly-populated talk thread filled with circular "I agree with..." among a small group. These changes go against many talk page threads that were joined by 10-20 editors, including RfC and open discussions that contradict the POV inserted yesterday, (e.g. as I mentioned above, the insinuation that the Russian interference is merely an "allegation". This recent material, including as MrX points out, the poorly-written lede language, should be undone so that talk can proceed in an orderly and constructive manner. If necessary, we can add a summary of current consensus as in the Donald Trump talk page, to avoid this kind of disruption in the future. SPECIFICO talk 12:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Not a good WP editing model when the only 4 dissenting editors all appear within an hour or so, while the other 20-30 whose (mainstream RS) work they reject are caught napping. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh please SPECIFICO, quit the conspiracy theories about editor collusion. Stick to discussing the contents towards article improvement. — JFG ^talk 13:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If and when reliable sources such as mainstream media refer to the allegations as facts, so will we. In the meantime, we must follow content policy. For your assurance, I have no contact with any other editors about this article. TFD (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD: I have been doing a systematic review of global news sources and they have and continue to refer to these allegations as "allegations," or "possible involvement," or "possible interference..." Sometimes it's so consistent it's clearly an editorial policy. I will post shortly, it's taken some time to go through all this. -Darouet (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

OMG such sensitivities. How on earth could either of the gentlemen from the USA think I was promoting conspiracy theories? However the fact remains that consensus requires the participation of more than the first 4 editors to show up at the talk page. I would have thought that fact would not be misconstrued as an allegation. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah! (american expression) That reminds me. See the open RfC below this thread?? And at [17]. Yes I see it. I see them both! Well, doesn't that kinda (american talk) mean that there was no consensus to pry the rejected POV "allegation" nonsense into the article in the wee hours yesterday? Yes, that's right. And BTW, the editor who violated 1RR by removing "putin personally" and the editor who removed "and undermine American democracy" -- those were points that were specifically articulated in the cited source, you know, the docusment that we're supposed to reflect as NPOV V RS Wikiputians. I hope the two 1RR perps will undo their violations shortly. I do hope so. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to wake up this morning to find the article rewritten. I tried to respond/add to SPECIFICO's comment, but there is something wrong with the edit flow on this page. Objective3000 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — The confusion arose from having an RfC presented as a transclusion, which interferes with editing in other threads. Restoring your comment where you were trying to insert it. — JFG ^talk 07:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The concerns raised at the beginning of this section conveniently support a desire to have our article support one particular narrative for this article. If consensus is discarded when it goes against the desires of the editors who oppose it, that's not a valid objection. The prior consensus was reached when many of us were unaware of the existence of this article at all. We ought to all review WP:OWN here - no one owns this article or has "seniority" in changing it or proposing changes to it.

When more editors become aware of this article's existence and have valid objections to the way it's worded or how it treats living persons, that's a new consensus being debated, and it has to be respected, as long as it isn't arrived at in ways which violate our guidelines. As it is, I have strong reservations about how the article echoes some mainstream press sources and ignores others when it's convenient to the narrative some editors wish to see in the article. We need to all re-read WP:POV and WP:OWN, to make sure none of us are asserting ownership of the article or trying to use it to promote a political narrative. loupgarous (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC).

Americana Scarecrow (516752575)

loupgarous Try responding to the issue at hand, and not to an alternative scenario so that any new consensus is generated from reasoned discussion. What you have done, referring to a counterfactual scenario is what the Americans quaintly call a "strawman." Edits contrary to an ongoing RfC have nothing in common with what your statement above. Eventually the whole bit will be restored to the previous version and a the ad hominems and recriminations will fly once more. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Right-O (american idiom) but the current RfC is affirming the "prior consensus", so the paleo version may well end up with a vote of confidence. Your reservation is noted, and will be filed with the other non-consensus views. BTW, please don't get into the desires and longings of other editors. It just doesn't help the decision making process here, so my hope is that you'll stick to the content and sourcing issues. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm SPECIFICO, you sure lean heavily on those American mannerisms, and all other kinds of Americanisms. I wish you'd spend more time making cogent and literate statements in standard English. If I were of a conspiratorial mindset, I'd say you're overcompensating for the fact that u ain't from around here. Hmmm... Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be more helpful, SPECIFICO, if you confined your remarks to the facts under consideration. Other editors have already admonished you for your combative tone elsewhere in this discussion. As other editors have stated above, I don't have on-wiki or off-wiki contact with other editors regarding this article outside this page as this discussion evolves. Speaking strictly for myself, I am alarmed to the degree that this article seems to present POV statements about several living persons as factual when they have not yet been proven here or in the mainstream press. That is the sole basis for my concern that this article has continuing WP:BLP issues.

I also note you spend a large amount of space in this discussion disgressing into what you label as "(american idiom)" which appears to actually be dated British and/or Commonwealth idiom of the sort Terry-Thomas would have used in 1960s cinema. It's not pertinent to the issues we're discussing (namely, POV content in a specific Wikipedia article).

As far as what you call "non-consensus views", it's not useful to discard other editors' ideas as being "non-consensus" before the consensus has even been reached. As a fellow editor, I invite you to help build a consensus with comments that are less combative in nature and less critical of what you imagine to be other editors' national diction. It's difficult to decide whether you're honestly mistaken or are simply trying to provoke other editors in an off-topic side conversation, but it has no place here.

Accusing other editors of collusion, lampooning what you represent to be their diction, and wrongly characterizing their comments as "non-consensus" while a consensus is still being built are typical of behavior mentioned in WP:WIAPA. Please consider joining the rest of us in building a consensus on the issues before us. Thank you. loupgarous (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't make personal remarks on article talk pages, and neither should you. You're welcome to pay me a visit on my personal talk page. Don't insinuate counterfactual premises into any such statements, however. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion of stable lede

The awkward attempt to fit the lede into an unsuitable format has been supported on talk by the claim that WP:OTHERSTUFF, i.e. the lede of this article should begin with a sentence in the same form as the lede for an article about an object or a person. "X is a,b,c" But this is not only inapt, it's also not what's done on hundreds of other articles that deal with subjects that are not objects. To name one, Social policy of Donald Trump. It's not surprising that the re-write is a mess, because it was done unilaterally and hastily on the fly. Many times, the POV-tagging editors were encouraged to pursue their concerns by proposing reasoned alternatives that would stand up to scrutiny on talk. In the cases when such proposals were raised, consensus rejected them and the current version ignores and violates an ongoing RfC that is about to be closed, likely rejecting the weaselly denial that the Russians in fact meddled in the US elections. So we're going to see the recent disruption reverted, just as other such disruptions have been reverted on many American Politics related articles. Instead of tagging and pointless mass deletions, I suggest that editors who reject the current consensus (once it is restored) make a succinct list of their proposed alterations and present them in an orderly and collegial format for discussion. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's evident that opinions are roughly evenly split about radically revising the lead to cast doubt on the Russian interference which, as I understand, is widely-accepted reality. Those wishing to made such changes have the burden of seeking and obtaining consensus. It would be helpful if they could demonstrate that the large majority of sources support their preferred viewpoint.- MrX 14:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw it too and agree with your revert. The lead was improperly changed to represent the "interference" as unproven allegations. They are not unproven according to the sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr. X has done the thankless and inevitable task of correcting the disruptive mass deletion of stable lede content. Any dissent should be brought to this talk page in a clear, orderly and reasoned advocacy. I caution those who tagged POV and who participated in the mass deletion not to reinsert their version without explicit prior consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I also support the edit. Geogene (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I also support your edit. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a "mass deletion." Several editors reworked the lede (particularly the opening paragraph) into a form which

1. is better written.
2. conforms better with an encyclopedic style.
3. better summarizes the subject.
4. is more neutral.

The best way forward, in my opinion, is to work with the reformulated lede here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a horrible suggestion but let's wait to hear from others. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Actually, I think it is poorly written per my previous comment. It uses passive voice, WP:WEASEL words, and deviates from our style guideline in several instances. It is less neutral in that it represents a minority view that the Russian interference is alleged, when in fact, it is generally accepted as fact by most sources. I am very receptive to revising the status quo version so that it is clearer and properly summarizes the article. I suggest that we take it from the top, sentence by sentence, until we come up with something that works for (most) everyone.- MrX 18:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: The revised lead section that you reverted with comment "Alleged" does not represent the preponderance of sources did not even say that Russian interference was alleged. Please read before reverting. Also, as you mass-reverted many individual edits, I would appreciate seeing your rationale for rejecting each specific change, e.g. what's wrong with this, this oder that? — JFG ^talk 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

How about you work on something you feel might be acceptable to the community here and then you can discuss your "step by step" rationale for each component of your proposed edit. Assigning work to others is not really helpful. The rationale for the consensus version X restored is "consensus". SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for assigning me more work while criticizing my allegedly assigning work to others. How about you offer something constructive rather than acting as Ye Olde Guardian Of Alleged Consensus? — JFG ^talk 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

But i'm a good sport so I'll pick one of my changes: look here for example: I arguably clarified the cumbersome wording while removing an instance of the dreaded "alleged" word. See, you're unhappy even when I agree with you… — JFG ^talk 20:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Your bold edit did include the word "alleged" and it continues to be argued by others on this page in spite of actual evidence showing that sources are overwhelmingly treating the Russian interference as an accepted fact. I've already explained why the rewording was not an improvement. It's poor style to state the article title verbatim and then obliquely describe it as referring to the role of it's primary actor. The Russian government did not have a role; they did it. The very next sentence starts with a preposition, and is awkward. It seems to attempt to deflect responsibility for the interference onto the DNC, Podesta, or Wikileaks. Why not be direct?- MrX 21:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, my first edit in a long series still had that word, as copied from a talk page discussion, and I later removed one instance of it while another editor removed another instance. Net result, your key objection was already moot when you reverted, so I think we can safely proceed from the new text, which had plenty of other improvements, instead of coming back to some arbitrary "status quo" version. Now your other arguments seem to be centered on the first couple of sentences in the lead, and those can surely be improved. I do not read the new wording as giving undue responsibility to the DNC or Wikileaks; the facts and sequence of events are simply explained chronologically and concisely. But let's improve: instead of saying Following the release of emails […] the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks we could turn it around by saying The US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was responsible for the release of emails […] Would that feel better from your point of view? Is there anything beyond the first two sentences that you are uncomfortable with? — JFG ^talk 21:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What MrX said. Objective3000 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that "Russian interference" is alleged isn't a minority opinion. It's how most reliable sources treat the issue. You've been consistently mixing up what reliable sources say ("officials say," "the U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that," etc.) with what the intelligence officials they cite say ("the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions," etc.). The reformulated lede makes it very clear that US intelligence has stated Russia interfered in US elections. The fact that they have stated that is what reliable sources report.

It uses passive voice, WP:WEASEL words, and deviates from our style guideline in several instances. No, it doesn't.

1. It doesn't use passive voice (I just checked again, and the reformulated first paragraph is all in active voice).
2. "Alleged" is not always a weasel word. In some cases (such as this), it's the most accurate description available.
3. You can't just say, "deviates from our style guidelines in several instances." That's incredibly vague and unhelpful. It sounds a lot like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Rather than using the poorly written first paragraph we have now, which doesn't give an overview of the subject, I think we should work from the reformulated lede. The latter seems to have a lot of support above on this talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: That's a horrible suggestion and it will result in you being topic-banned with probability 1. If you are convinced of the merit of that version, (which is quite inarticulate, and I agree with @MrX: above is horribly written) you may copy it to a sandbox page and work on it and then when you think it has reached its most compelling, exquisite, and policy-compliant form, you can propose it or invite the outside world to comment. That would be a good way to pursue your objectives. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not find SPECIFICO continued uncivilly to be suitable at this Talk page: That's a horrible suggestion and it will result in you being topic-banned with probability 1. Please focus on content, not contributors. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Source discussion

(edit conflict) @Thucydides411: Here are quotes from the top news search results for "russia election interference" (omitting opinion pieces, unreliable sources, and sources that only quote third parties):

1. "Russia’s intervention in the American presidential election was arguably the basis for one of the most important political scandals in modern history. Indeed, it’s the subject of an ongoing counter-intelligence investigation, which includes an examination of whether members of Donald Trump’s political operation colluded with a foreign adversary’s illegal scheme."
   — MSNBC

2. "A host of issues are responsible, topped by Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and Moscow’s support for separatists in Ukraine, and have prompted U.S. and European sanctions"
   — Washington Post

3. "The CIA early last summer obtained evidence of Russia's efforts to help Trump, The Times reported, and concluded before the FBI did that Russia's goal was not just to undermine the election, but to boost Trump's chances of winning."
   — Business Insider

4. "As Senate minority leader, Reid was among the lawmakers that Brennan had briefed on the scope of Russian interference in the election. "
   — Vanity Fair

5. "Russia's interference was not made public until months after Trump's November 8 election victory, with US intelligence chiefs openly accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of masterminding a hacking and disinformation campaign to skew the election results."
   — WION

6. "It was not until early December, a month after the election, that it became publicly known in news reports that the C.I.A. had concluded that Moscow’s motivation was to get Mr. Trump elected."
   — The New York Times

7. "James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, confirmed early in Monday’s hearing that the bureau is indeed, as has been widely reported, investigating the interference by Russian intelligence in the 2016 American presidential election — including any possible collusion by aides and associates of President Trump."
   — The New York Times

8. "Vladimir Putin haters woke up this morning to the Russian president finally voicing his thoughts to the American media about alleged Russian interference int the U.S. presidential election."
   — Forbes

9. "McCain, who called for a select committee to investigate the meddling, pointed out that the Russians are trying to influence the French election, which has its first round of voting next month. The senator also said that Moscow was increasing aggression in Ukraine, which would need aid from the U.S."
   — Bloomberg

10. "Russian television station RT reported that Levashov was arrested under a U.S. international arrest warrant and was suspected of being involved in hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year's U.S. election."
    — CNBC

11. "And like any good piece of political satire, the joke took aim at something serious: allegations that Russia tried to undermine the 2016 presidential election in the United States and is trying to influence votes elsewhere."
    — Chicago Tribune

12. "With its House counterpart imploding thanks to the late-night excursions and executive coziness of its chairman Devin Nunes, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee soldiers on in its investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election."
    — Tech Crunch

13. "The committee held its first public hearing on Russian meddling in the US election Thursday with calls for nonpartisanship, citing ongoing foreign interference that threatens "the heart of our democracy.""
    — CNN

14. "Some Democratic lawmakers charged last week that Russia’s election meddling amounted to an act of war, and others have accused Moscow of “attacking” the United States through its hacking."
    — The Hill

15. "U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia conducted a covert hacking operation to undermine the U.S. election process, which evolved into an attempt to help Trump win the White House. They also believe with "a high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in the campaign to interfere in the election."
    — NBC News

Sources that say "allege/alleged/allegations" are in red. In this sampling of top results, 4 out of 5 sources treat the Russian interference as accepted fact. For most, it is a matter of extent and who in the Trump administration were involved. I await your analysis to support your claim "The fact that "Russian interference" is alleged isn't a minority opinion. It's how most reliable sources treat the issue.- MrX 20:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC), - MrX 21:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: You may well continue a source battle with Thucydides411, however you are fighting a non-issue, because the version you reverted did not say that Russian intervention was alleged. Please examine the text and answer my comment above. I'd like the article deadlock to be lifted so we can all move forward and improve it bit by bit. — JFG ^talk 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Folks, the way this kind of massive POV re-write is handled is with a full alternative draft proposal. This approach is often effective and successful on WP. I strongly discourage anyone from getting piecemeal into the weeds in an unstructured and multidimensional talk page discussion when the end point is not clearly defined. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Erledigt, see RfC below. — JFG ^talk 04:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all, JFG is correct. But second of all, you need to take a closer look at your sources, with two things in mind:

1. Don't cite opinion pieces. The very first source you posted is Rachel Maddow's blog, for crying out loud. Stick to the non-opinion section.
2. There are many synonyms for "alleged." The simplest of them is to quote the allegation. You'll notice that most of your sources are quoting various American officials and politicians who have made the allegation. That's very different from stating the allegation to be true.

With that in mind, I'll go through your sources one-by-one:

Same list of sources as above

"Russia’s intervention in the American presidential election was arguably the basis for one of the most important political scandals in modern history. Indeed, it’s the subject of an ongoing counter-intelligence investigation, which includes an examination of whether members of Donald Trump’s political operation colluded with a foreign adversary’s illegal scheme." — MSNBC This is Rachel Maddow's blog. It's an opinion piece. "A host of issues are responsible, topped by Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and Moscow’s support for separatists in Ukraine, and have prompted U.S. and European sanctions" — Washington Post The Washington Post is one of the few major newspapers that does seem to have an editorial line of claiming Russian intervention to be a fact. Take that for what you will, but their editorial policy is different from most major outlets. "The CIA early last summer obtained evidence of Russia's efforts to help Trump, The Times reported, and concluded before the FBI did that Russia's goal was not just to undermine the election, but to boost Trump's chances of winning." — Business Insider I wasn't aware that we consider Business Insider to be a reliable source. I would have stuck with major newspapers. But note how this article attributes the claim of Russian interference specifically to the CIA and the FBI. "As Senate minority leader, Reid was among the lawmakers that Brennan had briefed on the scope of Russian interference in the election. " — Vanity Fair Again, this is discussing the CIA's assessments. "Russia's interference was not made public until months after Trump's November 8 election victory, with US intelligence chiefs openly accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of masterminding a hacking and disinformation campaign to skew the election results." — WION I've never heard of WION News. Are they reliable? But nevertheless, you'll notice that they specifically attribute the claim of Russian interference to the CIA and the FBI. "It was not until early December, a month after the election, that it became publicly known in news reports that the C.I.A. had concluded that Moscow’s motivation was to get Mr. Trump elected." — The New York Times This is exactly my point, again. The NY Times reports what the CIA's conclusions are. "James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, confirmed early in Monday’s hearing that the bureau is indeed, as has been widely reported, investigating the interference by Russian intelligence in the 2016 American presidential election — including any possible collusion by aides and associates of President Trump." — The New York Times Again, the NY Times is discussing the FBI investigation. I'll admit that the NY Times swings back and forth on this, but I think that along with the Washington Post, it's one of the few major newspapers to ever state "Russian interference" as a fact. "Vladimir Putin haters woke up this morning to the Russian president finally voicing his thoughts to the American media about alleged Russian interference int the U.S. presidential election." — Forbes "McCain, who called for a select committee to investigate the meddling, pointed out that the Russians are trying to influence the French election, which has its first round of voting next month. The senator also said that Moscow was increasing aggression in Ukraine, which would need aid from the U.S." — Bloomberg Where in this do you read Bloomberg asserting the "meddling" is true? They're describing McCain's statements. "Russian television station RT reported that Levashov was arrested under a U.S. international arrest warrant and was suspected of being involved in hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year's U.S. election." — CNBC "And like any good piece of political satire, the joke took aim at something serious: allegations that Russia tried to undermine the 2016 presidential election in the United States and is trying to influence votes elsewhere." — Chicago Tribune "With its House counterpart imploding thanks to the late-night excursions and executive coziness of its chairman Devin Nunes, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee soldiers on in its investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election." — Tech Crunch Tech Crunch. There are hundreds of high-quality newspapers around the world, but you're citing Tech Crunch. I wouldn't determine our wording on the basis of a tech website's editorial policy. I wouldn't even assume that Tech Cruch has a firm editorial policy. "The committee held its first public hearing on Russian meddling in the US election Thursday with calls for nonpartisanship, citing ongoing foreign interference that threatens "the heart of our democracy."" — CNN That's the subject of the committee hearings. I don't see any statement by CNN about the truth or untruth of "Russian meddling." "Some Democratic lawmakers charged last week that Russia’s election meddling amounted to an act of war, and others have accused Moscow of “attacking” the United States through its hacking." — The Hill The Hill Blog is paraphrasing Democratic lawmakers. Again, separate the newspaper's voice (in this case, the blog's voice) from the people it's paraphrasing. "U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia conducted a covert hacking operation to undermine the U.S. election process, which evolved into an attempt to help Trump win the White House. They also believe with "a high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in the campaign to interfere in the election." — NBC News Yes, that is what US intelligence agencies have publicly concluded. NBC News makes no commentary here on whether or not those conclusions are correct.

Now, I'll add a couple of examples from high-quality news sources:

1. Die USA erklären den Kreml zum Täter. Die Gruppe APT28, Hacker im russischen Staatsauftrag, soll während des US-Wahlkampfs verschiedene Ziele in den USA attackiert haben, darunter das Demokratische Wahlkampfkomitee. Solche Behauptungen erfordern hieb- und stichfeste Beweise. Bereits am 14. Dezember hatte die Regierung angekündigt, dass ausführliche Belege vorgelegt würden. Die Details, die FBI und Heimatschutz am Donnerstag veröffentlichten, genügen diesem Anspruch nicht. English: The USA declares the Kremlin to be the culprit. The group APT28, hackers in the service of the Russian state, supposedly attacked various targets in the USA during the US election campaign, including the DNC. Such claims require solid evidence. On 14 December, the government announced that exhaustive evidence would be presented. The details that the FBI and Homeland Security published on Thursday do not meet this standard.
   — Süddeutsche Zeitung (fixed link)

2. Moscou est soupçonné d’être à l’origine des piratages du Parti démocrate et d’avoir alimenté une campagne de désinformation contre Hillary Clinton. English: Moscow is suspected of being the source for pirated Democratic party documents and of having helped a disinformation campaign against Hillary Clinton.
   — Le Monde

3. The head of a key US congressional investigation into alleged Russian hacking has temporarily stepped down amid an ethics inquiry into him.
   — BBC News

4. The charges follow US accusations that Russian intelligence hacked Democratic party servers last year.
   — Financial Times

Those are four high-quality news sources, all of them describing "Russian interference" as something that is not known with certainty, and as something that US intelligence services and politicians have claimed. The reformulated lede (with the word "alleged") treats the subject in the same way as these sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The first source is not MSNBC, it's comments posted by the producer of the Rachel Maddow Show on her blog. But no doubt some news sources will omit qualifiers such as "alleged." The fact is though that most of them, particularly if they are writing about the issue, rather than mentioning it in passing do not express it as a certainty. By the way, the election is over and we will probably know the facts before the next one, so I don't see why you won't let the article reflect what the sources say. TFD (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The article starts with: The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered..." --- This wording is supported by every RS available. The fact that a small group of editors are hell bent on watering this down doesn't change anything, and in the end is just wasting people's time. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: The 2nd and 3rd senctences of the reformulated lede are:

Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks. An assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process."

How is that in any way "watered down"? It looks to me like a neutral description of what the reliable sources say. Beyond the word "alleged," I don't know what it is you take issue with. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Thucydides411: The very first source you posted is Rachel Maddow's blog, for crying out loud. No, it's not. Maddow's blog is at http://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog. I can understand that, as the link to it at the top of the page makes it look like it is, using a slash in that manner suggests folder structure that isn't actually used. Also, business insider is generally considered a reliable news sources. You can check RSN for archived threads, but I recall at least one discussion that was pretty much unanimous that it was good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Well, it looks like the article is written by Rachel Maddow's producer. Whether or not this is her blog or the section for her show isn't exactly clear to me, but it is clear that this isn't MSNBC's news section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. Sorry, it just is. This is a post from The MaddowBlog, as the tags at the bottom and the contents of the stories make clear. This is a blog devoted to exploring issues raised by Maddow on her show (mainly #TrumpRussia). I think Thucydides411 offered a good batch of highly prominent intentional news sources (certainly much more weight than BI), and they must be taken into consideration per wP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 did not post a good batch of sources. He posted sources that happen to agree with the POV that the Russian interference is alleged. By contrast, I selected the top 15 reliable sources that appeared in a search. Two of Thucydides411's sources are grossly out of date. I'm not a subscriber to the Financial Times so I can't comment on it.- MrX 23:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Come on, MrX. I posted articles from SZ, Le Monde, the BBC and FT. Those are four internationally recognized news sources. You can't seriously point to a piece from Rachel Maddow's show/blog as counterweight. And if you actually look at your sources (I went through them above), most of them share my "POV" that "Russian interference" is an allegation. They describe "Russian interference/meddling" as a claim that US intelligence or politicians have made. It's strange to even call the "alleged" phrasing a point of view: it's just a statement of the fact that US intelligence agencies have alleged Russia meddled in the 2016 US Presidential election. As for my sources being "grossly out of date," very little has changed, in terms of evidence, since December. Almost all the publicly available evidence came out last year. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you appear to believe that there are political “sides” that editors here support. I and others here have been accused of being on both sides of an issue, one time or another. That’s because we argue for inclusion and/or exclusion of material and wording that favors/disfavors both sides of whatever people think is divided into sides.. And that is because we are only interested in improving an encyclopedia. Decisions are meaningless without knowledge. We are only here to disseminate knowledge, not to sway opinion. Your edits all appear to favor one “side”. That’s but one reason some editors here are not swayed by your arguments. (Off my soapbox now.) Anyone is allowed to delete this edit after a short period. Objective3000 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thucydides411, most of the 15 sources that I cited are also internationally recognized. So what? I did not post a piece from the Rachel Maddow show, but feel free to discount the MSNBC blog article if it makes you feel any better. My argument is every bit as sound without it.- MrX 01:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: That piece says "The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog" above the title, and has "rachel-maddow-show" in the URL. It's an opinion piece written by Maddow's producer.

I'm not sure what your argument is. You posted a bunch of sources that cite US intelligence officials and politicians saying Russia interfered in US elections. That proves that the news media is reporting on claims made by US intelligence officials and politicians. It doesn't prove that the news media considers those claims to be true, and in fact, as I showed, a number of major international news outlets - BBC, Financial Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung (one of Germany's leading papers) and Le Monde (France's largest paper) - make it crystal clear in their reporting that "Russian interference" is an allegation. I'm only arguing that we treat this subject in the same way those major news outlets do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No, let's not do that. See every one of my previous comments on this "alleged" nonsense. I have nothing more to say on this topic.- MrX 02:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's not do what? Follow the BBC, SZ, FT and Le Monde? I really don't see how else to interpret your statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a cherry pick to me. I've read a lot of news articles about this by now, and there's a lack of sincere doubt about whether Russia meddled in the election. The question now is whether any Trump campaign officials were complicit. Geogene (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Lack of sincere doubt" sounds remarkably fuzzy to me. Have these news articles stated unambiguously that Russia interfered in US elections? "I don't see doubt in the news sources I read" (paraphrasing, of course) isn't a standard to go by, especially when the BBC is explicitly calling Russian interference "alleged." -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn’t mention the title of the article your LeMonde quote is from. The title is: "The US Senate is conducting an investigation into Russia’s role in the presidential election", immediately followed by your quote. LeMonde is "describing" (your term) that the US Senate suspects etc. The SZ quote isn’t in the article you linked to.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right - I gave the wrong URL for the SZ article. I've updated the link with the correct URL. The translation you've given of the Le Monde title is more or less right. Here's a more accurate translation: "Le Sénat américain enquête sur le rôle de la Russie dans la présidentielle" = "The American Senate's Investigation into the Role of Russia in the Presidential Election." Yes, Le Monde is describing the US Senate's suspicions about Russia. It's not endorsing the truth of those suspicions. That's how most reliable sources seem to be handling this issue, in general, and it's how we should handle it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Guccisamsclub: Having a link to the blog at the bottom does not make the page a part of Maddow's blog. I'm sorry, but you're really grasping at straws here. Why would they link to the blog, in a blog post? I mean, come on now. It is pretty obviously not Maddow's blog. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You just need to go to http://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog and look at a couple posts. They are either videos of Maddow or posts by Steve Benen, who is her producer. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So pointing out that Maddow's blog follows a different media format than this piece is somehow evidence that this piece is part of Maddow's blog? Really? You're doing a wonderful job of convincing me that you're determined to undermine the reliability of this source by whatever means necessary, and a very poor job of convincing me that this source is unreliable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I don't understand why we're still talking about the MSNBC piece. It's written by Maddow's producer, has "The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog" written above the title, and has "msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/" in the URL. It's clearly not from MSNBC's news section, and it's clearly somehow connected with the Rachel Maddow show (even just by looking at the URL). Can we agree that this source is an opinion piece? I think we're all wasting our time arguing about it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Finally we can all agree. You are wasting our time with this tendentious bludgeon horsie thing. I note nobody has even chosen to dignify the "RfC" with a !vote. Y'alls should go to a sandbox page and work out a really good carefully considered alternative that you think will pass the mustard. (American idiom) SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I'm a bit bemused that someone would use such tenuous arguments to claim this is a blog post from a specific blog and then, when running out of claims, act exasperated and say arguing is a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, I agree completely that arguing about it is a waste of time. All I did was offer a simple correction to a misstatement. You may notice that I haven't had much participation on this page lately, and that's not an accident. There's only so much POV pushing I can handle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: There's only so much POV pushing I can handle. Just consider what it looks like from my perspective. MrX cited an opinion piece from the website for Rachel Maddow's show as evidence that reliable sources consider "Russian interference" a fact. I pointed out that there's a banner right above the title indicating that this is a Rachel Maddow piece (i.e., not a news article). I would have thought the immediate reaction would be, "My bad, let's discount that source." But instead, we're engaged in a back-and-forth over whether or not a page that has "rachel-maddow-show" in the URL is related to her show, or a proper news article. It is exasperating from my side. That's why I was asking you, flat out, if you'll just agree that this is an opinion piece, so we can move on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Fringe POV's on hundreds of articles lament the same. Fringe or denialist perspectives are not entitled to "equal time" with the mainstream representation of the subject. Moreover after the minority POV has been amply heard and aggressively promoted on talk, and rejected, it's time to move on to other ways the article might be improved. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:I know we've disagreed on a lot, but in truth, your POV isn't the only one I take issue with, nor is it the one I take the most issue with. There is blatant POV pushing coming from the political left, as well, and it frankly drives me insane to see people who's political ideologies substantially mirror my own engaging in behavior which I feel is beneath any serious editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Other comments: Investigation

I don't believe that the sources presented above disclaim the use of "alleged interference" in the article.

1. "Russia’s intervention in the American presidential election is the subject of an ongoing counter-intelligence investigation...."
   — MSNBC

2. "The CIA early last summer obtained evidence of Russia's efforts to help Trump, The Times reported, and concluded before the FBI did that Russia's goal was not just to undermine the election, but to boost Trump's chances of winning."
   — Business Insider

3. "As Senate minority leader, Reid was among the lawmakers that Brennan had briefed on the scope of Russian interference in the election. "
   — Vanity Fair

4. "Russia's interference was not made public until months after Trump's November 8 election victory, with US intelligence chiefs openly accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin ..."
   — WION

5. "It was not until early December, a month after the election, that it became publicly known in news reports that the C.I.A. had concluded that Moscow’s motivation was to get Mr. Trump elected."
   — The New York Times

6. "James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, confirmed early in Monday’s hearing that the bureau is indeed (...) investigating the interference by Russian intelligence ...."
   — The New York Times

7. "... the Senate Select Intelligence Committee soldiers on in its investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election."
   — Tech Crunch

8. "The committee held its first public hearing on Russian meddling in the US election Thursday ....""
   — CNN

9. "Some Democratic lawmakers charged last week that Russia’s election meddling amounted to an act of war ...."
   — The Hill

10. "U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia conducted a covert hacking operation ...."
    — NBC News

What I see here are "charges", "investigations", "hearings", "conclusions by intelligence agencies", etc. The article is really about the Investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. So we either change the title to this, or use "alleged" as these accusations have not been proven in the court of law. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Court of law" isn't the standard we use on Wikipedia. We basically reflect what the sources say, that's it. And by this point, most sources take the existence of interference as a fact, not an "allegation".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I posted the same sources as you did, and I don't come to the same conclusions. Please see above. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Your examples don't support that POV that a preponderance of sources describe the Russian interference as alleged. In several cases, you quote third parties, which I intentionally avoided. The difference is between attributed statements of third parties and the voice of each published source itself. Also, the investigations are not to determine if the interference occurred; they are to determine who in Trump's orbit are complicit.- MrX 01:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not following; this is exactly the same content you have posted, edited for concision. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I struck a portion of my comment which I didn't articulate well. The point is that there is a difference in what a source reports a third party saying and what the source itself concludes. It is clear to me that these sources accept that the interference occurred. Some are more explicit than others, but very few express any doubt at all.- MrX 01:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't at all clear to me from reading those sources that they accept that the interference occurred. You're reading a lot into these sources that isn't obvious from just reading through them. When a newspaper quotes an intelligence official, we can't just assume that the newspaper thinks the content of that official's statement is true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

all this belongs at the RfC on the use of "alleged" -- nothing here is going to outweigh whatever is decided by the close of that RfC. Please apply any efforts where they will might conceivably have some effect on the outcome. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"It isn't at all clear to me from reading those sources" - well, that might have something to do with your reading of these sources. Come on. Most sources accept the fact that interference occurred. The only thing that's uncertain is the scope of this interference and its purpose. And even the latter has come into sharper focus since this article was started.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Most sources accept the fact that interference occurred." How do you tell that? I can't see it from reading the sources. When a newspaper reports what the CIA says, that doesn't mean that they accept those CIA statements as truthful. I really don't understand what in those articles leads you to think that they accept "Russian interference" as fact. On the other hand, we have a lot of articles from reliable sources that explicitly express doubt about claims of Russian interference, or phrase it as an allegation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

MrX provided sources above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I read the cited passages, and I don't see how MrX infers that they "accept the fact that interference occurred." They don't state that Russia interfered in the US elections (aside from Maddow's blog). It seems like you're asking me to read between the lines and infer something that isn't explicitly stated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

MrX's sourced and my sources are exactly the same (they are MrX's sources). Compare with: Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Source_discussion. As I said, the article is really about the Investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections -- that's what the sources are reporting on. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps the difference is that you consider that stating the interference as a fact ("Russia’s intervention in the American presidential election...") and that interference being under investigation ("is the subject of an ongoing counter-intelligence investigation....") are mutually exclusive. They're not. Something can be true AND in the process of being investigated at the same time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's from the Rachel Maddow piece. Can we agree to stick to news sources in this discussion? -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no doubt as to the Russians' interference in the US and other Western democratic processes. In the USA there are several investigations as to the nature and extent of the interference. Some of these investigations are for national defense purposes, so when the US Senate and the CIA investigate they are doing it for civil defense. Other investigations, such as the FBI or the US Attorneys of various districts, are investigating whether criminal violations of law need to be prosecuted. Anywhere in the world one can view the satellite feeds of the American morning tube and see deadpan figures like Wilson Geist and Cuomo frere stating "Russian interference". I know airtime is precious, but I don't think they're omitting "alleged" to squeeze time for another detergent advert. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed lead section

Should the proposed lead section replace the current version? If not, what must be changed to make progress? — JFG ^talk 04:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

While the discussion above has evolved into a source battle over depicting Russian interference as fact or allegation, I'd like to submit the updated lead section as amended by myself and several editors before yesterday's revert by MrX. This version does not call the intervention alleged, although several editors have failed to acknowledge this simple fact. Besides the "alleged" controversy, some editors have expressed concrete concerns about awkwardness of the first two lead sentences and general "poor writing style". I say the first two sentences can be improved, and the writing style was even poorer before. Now, here's my proposal, with an amended first paragraph to address the discernable concerns. Please comment in the survey and discussion below.

The United States Intelligence Community has concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process."

On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russian intelligence services had hacked the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and provided their contents to WikiLeaks. In January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Russia also meddled in the elections by disseminating fake news promoted on social media.

Several cybersecurity firms stated that the cyberattacks were committed by Russian intelligence groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to "cut it out" via the red phone. Russian officials have repeatedly denied involvement in any DNC hacks or leaks.

In December 2016, Obama ordered a report on hacking efforts aimed at U.S. elections since 2008, while U.S. Senators called for a bipartisan investigation. President-elect Donald Trump initially rejected the intelligence reports, dismissing claims of foreign interference and saying that Democrats were reacting to their election loss. Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates. Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

On December 29, 2016, the U.S. expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals. Russia did not retaliate.

List of citations has not changed; they will appear correctly in the article, as most of them are culled from the article body.
References

Survey

Please indicate your support or opposition to this version of the lead section, with a short rationale.

• Support paragraphs 1 and 3 only - "US" should be changed to the more conventional "U.S". Important material about investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page have been omitted from the second paragraph."Provided" should be "leaked". "Cut it out" should be change to "warned". The sentence: "Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia." is not lead worthy.- MrX 11:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I switched to "U.S." per MOS:US, except in the citation of the report, which spells it "US". Investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page are mentioned twice in paragraph 4, just not named individually: Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates. The Clapper statement is the only "status report" about those collusion investigations so far, hence relevant to the lead. "Provided" vs "leaked" was to avoid saying "leaked to Wikileaks" which looks awkward; what's wrong with "provided"? "Cut it out" is a direct citation of Obama's language, which gives some personal tone to the statement; we could instead paraphrase, e.g. "warned Putin to stop", but that's a bit dull. — JFG ^talk 15:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead section discussion

Please place suggested amendments or longer discussions here.

The lede as of this version was much better. While a few editors have said they don't like the version I've linked, I don't think they've articulated any clear reason why, beyond disagreement with the word "alleged." The first sentence states the subject of the article:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election.

The second sentence gives a very short summary of the events that led to the scandal:

Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.

The third sentence paraphrases what US intelligence has claimed about Russian interference:

An assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".

What's the problem with this opening paragraph, beyond the word "alleged"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that "alleged" is a big deal. Other than that it's ok as far as the first three sentences go. The major problem with your version is that it then proceeds to conceal/remove a bunch of pertinent info that follows those three sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Same for JFG's version actually.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What is "concealed or removed"? 213.55.184.226 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If "alleged" is such a big deal, then why do many major news sources use it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I found 5 pages hits for the term "alleged" in a Google news search for the last hour.[18] It seems to be a fairly common and evenhanded term used when police or others have made accusations against living people that have not been proved in a court or other tribunal. Here's ABC an article called, "Charleston Shooting: A Closer Look at Alleged Gunman Dylann Roof". That did not cast doubt on whether Dylann Roof was the gunman. That's just how serious sources report things. TFD (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Strawman type C-16. That dude is an individual accused of a crime subject to pending US prosecution. Next. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If the title is so difficult to understand that it needs to be explained in the lead, then maybe we should change it, to something like "Alleged Russian …"? No, wait, been there, not done that. Replacing hacking & providing to WL with "release of emails", "leaks" - did the DNC and Podesta turn them over to WL? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, SPECIFICO, but I don't know what C16 means. I don't have a copy of the DNC talking points glossary. FYI, people who commit crimes against the United States or its citizens are subject to prosecution in the U.S. Osama bin Laden for example was on the FBI ten most wanted list despite having never entered the U.S. and attempts were made to by the U.S. government to apprehend him. Closer to the topic, Julian Assange, who released the DNC and Podesta emails, is currently under criminal investigation in the U.S. for possible violation of the Espionage Act. Guccifer, a computer hacker living in Romania, has been indicted on multiple counts in the U.S. and is facing extradition. TFD (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean the alleged Osama! Assange takes credit for "wikileaks" Guccifer is as real as "SPECIFICO", not a person. Next... SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it is possible to reply to my statements without going off on a tangent? Guccifer is a name for Marcel Lazăr Lehel, "an individual accused of a crime subject to pending US prosecution." Whether or not Assange takes credit for wikileaks, he does not take credit for conspiring with the Russian government to subvert democracy in the United States.Any person regardless of nationality or current whereabouts may be prosecuted by U.S. authorities if they were involved in hacking into the DNC and Podesta emails. So just concede you were mistaken about your strawman argument accusation and move on. TFD (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

OK we'll get serious cause folks don't know you're just flirting with me. The tangent is bringing up examples of OTHERSTUFF instead of sticking to whether mainstream RS overwhelmingly accept the fact that Russia took various actions to interfere with the US elections. So let's reboot and you can demonstrate that the mainstream view is not that Russia tried to interfere. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that they consistently qualify the claims with terms such as "alleged." And they will continue to do that until evidence is presented and experts provide their opinions. That does not mean they question the intelligence any more than they questioned WMDs in Iraq or that accused criminals are guilty. And that's how this article should be written according to policy. TFD (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the intelligence community actually claimed that Iraq had WMDs as claimed by the executive branch? Objective3000 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We're going round and round here. There were a couple of threads on this earlier (such as the hatted discussion about Iraq in this RfC). The TL;DR is that both the Bush administration and the intelligence agencies were complicit in aggressively overselling intelligence about supposed Iraqi WMD. In the years afterwards, we in the public found out that the internal, classified conclusions of the intelligence agencies were much weaker than had been publicly stated. We had been told they were certain about things that they weren't actually certain about. That's a cautionary note for everyone to take to heart. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

On that note, Thyc, I urge you to step away from this fruitless pit. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Editors' opinions are required when assessing the reliablity of sources. U.S. intelligence has consistently provided conveniently misleading information and therefore is not a reliable source. Whether or not specific claims are accurate is something we determine based on what reliable sources, such as mainstream news media and academic research, say. TFD (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, now we have your opinion, and then we have U.S. intelligence declarations published in RS. Hmmmm...which should we choose, your opinion and OR about their reliability, or the RS? Just in case you haven't noticed, there is an ongoing investigation, and as more has leaked out, we have discovered that any seeming dissembling by them was because they had to protect the investigation, and what has been revealed is that the seriousness of the interference is far more than anyone of us realized, and that the likelihood of collusion seems stronger as well. The latest revelations about Carter Page, and his denials (which draw quite the revealing picture) are very interesting. His denials are like dots scattered on the floor, with an area with no dots, and that area is a picture, exactly the one described on page 30 of the dossier. Without being accused, he "doesn't" mention it several times in several different interviews. How odd. It's as if he knows something. Stay tuned.

My point is that your OR seems more based on personal POV than upon the revelations coming from RS, so I suggest we just go with them, and time will tell. Otherwise, this is the talk page, and this is an interesting discussion, but we can't put yours or my speculations in the article....fortunately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does the lead sentence cite the Oct 2016 report instead of the January 2017 report? Humanengr (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The proposed text cites the Nakashima article about the January 2017 report; we could cite an extra source mentioning the October 2016 report; their conclusions are essentially the same. As you recently pointed out, mentioning an exact date was superfluous in the lead sentence itself. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: We are not relying on "US Intelligence" - we are simply reflecting what RS say. Mainstream RS could report on a confident idiot in a cage and we would need to cite that. It has nothing to do with our opinion of the opinion, let alone our opinion as to the facts. SPECIFICO talk 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Is your cmt here mis-pinged, mis-placed?? Humanengr (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Re "their conclusions are essentially the same": Yes, contra the 1st sentence, neither report said "concluded that".

The Oct report said "x was confident that y". The Jan report said "x had high confidence that y" -- as noted in the 2nd sentence after the title and 1st sentence have set the tone for the entire article; too late. (Good to link 'high confidence' though few will follow that; the damage has been done.)

The certainty of the title and 1st sentence are reinforced elsewhere in the lead paras.

Any RS's that reports that the USIC "concluded that" are lying about the degree of certainty and should be disqualified as RS; their error-checking is meaningless. Humanengr (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, but feel free to inquire at WP:RSN if you think you can get other editors to concur with that reasoning.- MrX 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: So, in your view, "x concluded that y" = "x was confident that y" or "x had high confidence that y"? Humanengr (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You do understand that different sources may use different words to convey the same information, right? I don't understand why anyone has difficulty understanding why journalists would interpret "The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises..." to mean "USIC concluded that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises...". See also WIKT: conclusion: "A decision reached after careful thought."- MrX 13:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Re "use different words to convey the same information": so you think those statements are equivalent? Humanengr (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In the context used, those two statements are semantically equivalent. I thought that was obvious from my previous response.- MrX 13:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx for responding, but I don't see them as semantically equivalent. Follow-on: Do you think the DNI does? Humanengr (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have precious little time to help improve this article, and this discussion is not helping to fulfill that goal. Cheers.- MrX 14:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that the DNI does not see those statements as semantically equivalent, is there any improvement you could make that is more substantive than to use their language in the lead sentence? Why propagate a misrepresentation? Humanengr (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: And yes, I can understand some "journalists would interpret …". They inhabit a common culture with common biases that distort. The DNI report is clear and succinctly indicates degree of certainty., There is no excuse except our own biases not to use DNI language in the very first sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Report said "determined" which was in the article briefly but reverted by one of the POV fringe edits. It's really important everyone review the history of the article and the talk discussions, because the more we reopen rehash and relitigate settled discussions, the less participation we're going to have here and the worse the article will be served. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "Determined" is not in Jan 2017 report. Cite ?? Humanengr (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

[19]. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Why did you post that link? That is not a report. What are you trying to say? Humanengr (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I kept "concluded" because any other word is going to be fiercely contested, and because there's an open RfC about using this exact word vs "accused". I once suggested "affirmed", which sounds more neutral and factual to me, hoping we could get consensus on that… Opinions? — JFG ^talk 15:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I appreciate your efforts. 'Affirmed' seems both nebulous (affirmed what?) and too certain (the 'that x' part). Here’s a thought that afaics no one else has expressed: How about using the phrase in the Oct 2016 report that is in the PS cited by the RS cited in the lead sentence: "The United States Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”? As much as I don’t think it helps to continue to refer to the older report now that the newer one is available, it does allow for a short accurate summary statement. Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Date confusion in 1st sentence

"The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections in January 2017.[1]" where the note says "Nakashima, Ellen (October 7, 2016). 'U.S. government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections'. Washington Post. Retrieved January 25, 2017." A Oct 7 2016 cite for a 'conclusion' reached in Jan 2017? Humanengr (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The proposed update to the lead section above does not make that confusion. — JFG ^talk 06:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)