Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*'''No''' - This content has always been ]. On top of that, it's now so outdated, relative to the overall investigation, that it's fairly misleading.- ]] 22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' - This content has always been ]. On top of that, it's now so outdated, relative to the overall investigation, that it's fairly misleading.- ]] 22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
::Goodin's commentary was very typical of commentary at the time on the Joint Analysis Report. We could equally have cited a number of other sources that gave very similar views - that the JAR did not provide compelling evidence to link Russia to the email releases. The JAR is a central part of this story, being one of only a few US intelligence reports on the subject. I don't see how the mainstream view of one of the only reports issued by US intelligence about alleged Russian hacking could be considered ].
::I also don't see how this material could be regarded as outdated. What makes it outdated? It's an 11-month-old source discussing an 11-month-old topic. The JAR is still one of the few US intelligence reports on the subject, and unless the general view of the JAR has been substantially revised, the view that was widely published back then (of which Goodin's article is only an example) is not outdated.
::The reasoning about being misleading "relative to the overall investigation" sounds quite disturbing: what you're effectively saying is that by presenting the mainstream criticism of the JAR, some readers might draw conclusions that you think ''other aspects of the story'' show to be wrong.
::This just looks like an attempt to hide the mainstream view of the JAR from readers. Given the discussion above about "purging" the article, the intent of this RfC is quite clear. -] (]) 17:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' - very dated now. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' - very dated now. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' - time has shown this is undue. By the way, there is plenty of evidence in unclassified sources, the AP recently published some damning stuff, but it's only of tangential interest to the subject. Not fair to imply there is none, though. ] (]) 00:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' - time has shown this is undue. By the way, there is plenty of evidence in unclassified sources, the AP recently published some damning stuff, but it's only of tangential interest to the subject. Not fair to imply there is none, though. ] (]) 00:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:00, 12 November 2017
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Not moved, 21 December 2016, /Archive 2#Requested move 21 December 2016
MRV, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Endorsed, 7 January 2017, Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2017 January
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Not moved, /Archive 3#Requested move 29 December 2016
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, No consensus, 7 January 2017, /Archive 3#Requested move 7 January 2017
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia, No consensus, 4 February 2017, /Archive 5#Requested move 4 February 2017
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Template:WikiProject Donald TrumpPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Is the RS encyclopedic material regarding the Russian ad buys on social media being unbiased and designed to create general upheaval just invisible?
Included: academic study on the social media buys, facebook denials, facebook admissions but nothing about the facebook admission that the actual ads were unbiased? Just must not be encyclopedic?
Why is this article perpetually ignoring any and all RS encyclopedic material that contradicts the left wing cabal fake narrative?
You should avoid bad faith comments if you want anyone to cooperate with you. One reason the new material is not included is that it was literally released today. They're explaining it on CNN as I type. This article does say by the way that Democrats paid for the report. TFD (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not a valid argument. There are any facts that has been ignored a long time in this article. That seems this is a bias article.Neuwert (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to "perpetually ignore" something that just came out. Also note that the involvement of the Clinton campaign in paying for the research to compose the dossier doesn't in any way disprove its content. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
So, why don't you edit that article with this fact. I saw that you edited that today, but forgot to creat a new title with this fact.Neuwert (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Is one line enough? This is collusion, interference and obstruction with Russia from the DNC. Shouldn't it have it's own article and maybe 23 more like it?
Russian ad buys sought to sow political discord did not favor one candidate over another
New descriptions of the Russian-bought ads shared with CNN suggest that the apparent goal of the Russian buyers was to amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos, though not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.
The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to promote a documentary called “You’ve Been Trumped,” a film about Donald J. Trump’s efforts to build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent $36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As per above unsigned cmt by Casprings, BBC have reported same (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41804740), states Manafort is facing charges but "nature of charges is unclear", also says business associate Rick Gates faces charges. Please could article have line added wherever appropriate to reflect new developments? 217.39.75.98 (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done for now: I'm sure I'll be overridden, but can't we wait a few hours for the indictments to be unsealed? O3000 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Unsealed and already uploaded on wiki commons. Need to be added.Casprings (talk)|
He didn't meet with Russians but with someone who had met Russians. And Trump never met this adviser. While no doubt this has relevance, you need to explain what that is and source it. TFD (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If nothing else, this demonstrates that the Russians compromised the Trumps and the campaign -- witness the coverage of the matter in this article. SPECIFICOtalk18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This is something to keep an eye on, although it doesn't yet relate to this subject or have anything worth adding to the article. (Actually I see it is there, under "other Trump associates".) But it may prove to be very important in the future, because 1) this was a plea bargain in which he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and provide information, and 2) one big glaring item in the information about these proposed meetings is that he discussed them with an unnamed "campaign supervisor" - widely believed to have been Manafort. So, as they say, watch this space. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
RS discuss Russian psy-ops. If the Russians have succeeded in fomenting the discussion of the possibility of Russian interference they have been successful. Daily RS discussion of the ins and outs of the investigations, recriminations against everyone from Nunes to HuckabeeSanders, and all the current Fox News Hillary uranium coverage, tell us that they have successfully intruded in US civic processes. Whether the interference extends to various alleged crimes or direct electoral interference is the only point. SPECIFICOtalk23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Need section summarizing publicly available evidence
This very long article is full of opinions and claims to have evidence by various arms of the US government and by cybersecurity firms. The latter are linked to the government through contracts and/or ownership by former military/intelligence operatives. There are also claims by Facebook, but their evidence is also kept secret. According to Reuters "public evidence of Russian meddling, something that has not so far been presented, would be sure to translate into tougher U.S. sanctions against Moscow". Why don't we have a section on publicly available evidence? Because there isn't any? Keith McClary (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The article presents what is contained in the sources cited, no more and no less. Articles aren't written to satisfy your political opinions. ValarianB (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to do with my politics. My source discusses the implications in case any evidence is made public. I can't see this addressed elsewhere in the article. Keith McClary (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
We could include the Reuters quote: “public evidence of Russian meddling...has not so far been presented....”. Plus any reports that the evidence exists but is non-public. Does “presented” mean presented in court or presented anywhere? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it's undue weight, it's not clear that Reuters isn't talking about the Manafort/Gates indictments specifically. Plus, several new or low edit count accounts have been pushing for this, and it's disruptive to keep posting the same damn thing over and over again after it gets dismissed the first time. The Keith McClary account posted the same political arguments here on 19 December, that was dismissed. Continuing to come here to make the same complaint is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that is disruption. I have now posted DS alerts on that user's talk page. If this sort of soapboxing continues, then some combination of SPI and AE will be in order. Geogene (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
December 2016? Are you kidding me? Consensus can change, and he’s presented a brand new Reuters article. I’m not saying I support any article edits at this point, but you seem to be overdoing it with the gag orders. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes I understand we can include the quote, how and where, randomly insert it? |It will need context, so I am asking what is the suggested edit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The Reuters article says that public evidence of Russian meddling has not so far been presented. Should that statement be in the article, e.g. as the last sentence of the lead? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It's a general statement that sums up the situation regarding public evidence and would have good context as it would be in a paragraph about investigations underway. Here's a possible sentence for the end of the lead.
As of October 31, 2017, public evidence of Russian meddling has not been presented.
Undue weight for one little line in one Reuters piece, considering the thousands of news articles that have been written about this. Further, the last sentence of the lead is one of the most conspicuous parts of an article. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The lede section acts as a concise overview of the topic for the reader. The lack of public evidence is a notable fact that aids the understanding, therefore it should be (briefly) mentioned there. — JFG23:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead is a concise summary of the body. Not everything in the body merits mention in the lead. If this is only source, then it doesn't merit mention in the body. Geogene (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Read tomorrow's newspaper. Congressional testimony. Social media ads. No evidence? Editor time is scarce and valuable. It's time to drop this and work on article improvement. This complaint didn't make sense even before the election. "Russia if you're listening...Clinton emails..." SPECIFICOtalk23:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
See? Remarks that like just show what a waste of time these stupid threads are. I hatted this, it should have been left that way. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This thread is stupid. It started out as a transparent and partisan NOTFORUM screed identical to others we get on a monthly basis. Now some editors are using it to try to create a song and dance about evidence being classified and that, therefore, it doesn't exist. This is not productive behavior. The "request" that we create a subsection about the lack of evidence--was not actionable per NPOV guidelines and at best was borderline trolling. Just like that user's last visit here contained a "request" that we move the article to "lack of evidence of Russian meddling". This should not have been unhatted. That was poor judgement, and I for one do not appreciate that. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk threads are often stupid, but that’s not the threshold for making them disappear. As many commenters have said here, they find the Reuters quote interesting and worth finding out more about. You tried to shut it all down not just by hatting, but by hatting in such a way that the tiny discussion that already occurred became invisible. Please don’t do stuff like that again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
If think that it's warranted, then I will do so. This was warranted. By that, what I mean in this instance is that it was repetitive, partisan, inactionable, and NOTFORUM. Even if you like the Reuters piece, the delivery was terrible. Geogene (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Geogene, re: "Now some editors are using it to try to create a song and dance about evidence being classified and that, therefore, it doesn't exist.” That's mischaracterizing the issue. The claim is that neither you (nor MSM) have any basis for saying it does exist. Humanengr (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Re ‘Nor’: So you claim MSM has no basis for saying either it does or does not exist. So we go with what ‘RS’ says. Right? Humanengr (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think (as I said elsewhere) we go with what RS say, not what we think is true. But I have not seen any list represented, so we cannot include one. Until we see such a list for inclusion here I cannot say if it is sourced to RS or is OR (and it is the list we are discussing, if you want to talk about anything else start a new section).Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, the statement in Reuters may be misleading. It is probably referring to no direct evidence rather than no evidence of any kind, which includes circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence may involve classified information about intelligence gathering that wouldn't be available to the public. So if the statement appears in the article, it may need to have that context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The proposed section is not needed and certainly not warranted based on on a couple of sentences in a single Reuter's article. Find a dozen or so strong sources that discuss the importance of public evidence and then we will have a basis for a meaningful content discussion.- MrX01:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
As others have said, the lead is a summery of our article (it is not there for emphacise), so until someone can provide some kind of text for the main body disusing this it cannot go in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that may be a good example of what's missing from the public evidence. Without giving evidence of a "trail of ruble payments", the article says, "The House Intelligence Committee provided on Wednesday the biggest public platform to date for a sample of the Facebook ads and pages that were linked by a trail of ruble payments to a Russian company with Kremlin ties." Maybe there's another article out there that gives the evidence of the trail of ruble payments, if it was made available to the public. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Unless articles are specifically discussing a lack of public evidence, then we can't use it because it's editorializing/OR. And again, since we can't use this, this post by Bob K31416 is another example of how Misplaced Pages talk pages are being hijacked to spread conspiracy theories without benefiting the article itself. Not only is this NOTFORUM, is the antithesis of the project's stated goal of disseminating knowledge, and this is something that shouldn't be tolerated. Let me reiterate: it was a mistake to unhat this thread. I hope that mistake isn't repeated in the future. Geogene (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I would request that editors don't rebut comments like Geogene's above because it would only take threads further off topic. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the topic now? That you have a political opinion that goes against the bulk of reliable sourcing, sourcing which is so abundant that it's literally hard to avoid here in the US, and yet you want to organize a search party to find sources to support your viewpoint in the article? Well, that's not exactly how this is supposed to work, but maybe they'll help you at Jimbo Talk. Good luck. Geogene (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, Geogene is stating the fundamental policy-based operation of Misplaced Pages editing and talk page discussion. We use reliable sources. We don't second guess them as to how they arrived at the statements they make. This sounds like an updated rehash of the initial denials we heard last year -- the classified sources were not revealed to internet pundits and self-styled consultants who took a call from a journalist, therefore the US intelligence estimate cited by RS is incorrect. We need to ensure we don't give over the talk pages to conspiracy theories, fringe POV pushing and the like. WP policy supports this and we should not fail to embrace it. Time to hat or archive this thread. SPECIFICOtalk16:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The situation regarding evidence was stated by the US government in their report of Jan 2017,
"This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign."
This kind of information about the classified nature of the evidence seems to have been left out of our article, or maybe I missed it and someone can point it out? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
—Just thought of doing an edit find for the keyword "classified", and I found in the section January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment the following.
"The report contained no information about how the data was collected and provided no evidence underlying its conclusions."
I note that there was nothing about the classified nature of the evidence in the lead. Perhaps that's not considered a very significant fact? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It's clearly not a very significant fact, as can be told from the way that reliable sources universally downplay it. Geogene (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I take your “It’s clearly not” phrase to indicate you have no doubt. Do you ever doubt ‘reliable sources’ when they ‘universally’ agree? Humanengr (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Now, if you ever are going to make a useful suggestion towards improving the article, I suggest you hurry up before I start looking at more serious options than hatting you. This is not some kind of debate club. Geogene (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The US government document itself didn't downplay it. The first thing in the document is the following.
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President.
The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.
Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.
BTW, all of my discussion is about improving the article, in this case about whether or not to put some information in the lead. I think the last part of your comment, like other comments of yours, is disruptive. Now you have expressed your opinion about the significance of the information, which I infer is also your opinion about whether or not mention of the classified nature of the evidence should be put in the lead, and I would like to get the opinion of others too. I'm pretty open minded on the question, so I can go either way, depending on what others say. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote in my previous message, I'm pretty open minded on the question and I would like to see what others have to say first, and possibly they may have suggestions themselves. Or who knows, you might change your mind on the question, which would make things a lot more easy. Anyhow, let's get more input. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposed change in first sentence of lead
Since there hasn't been any quick responses and there may not be any responses, I'll present a possibility and if there isn't any support, I'll simply drop it. The possible addition is the phrase, "based on highly classified intelligence," for the first sentence of the lead as follows.
Which is why we say only what RS say? So until we have something in the body we cannot have it in the lead. So lets just try and decode if this is even going to be included in the body before adding it to the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course I will oppose the word "claim" or any similar variant that tries to shade or cast aspersions on the assertions that classified evidence exists, because that would be editorializing without sources. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
But asserting without sources that classified evidence exists isn't editorializing? You're just asking Misplaced Pages to treat claims of US intelligence (not Russian intelligence, not Chinese intelligence, mind you) with complete credulity. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, with complete credulity, the same as the bulk of reliable sources do, for as long as they're credulous. This is what NPOV means. You hint at hypothetical situations where I might not agree with a nation's intelligence conclusions even if sources do. In that instance, I would find some other topic area to edit in, because trying to POV-push against the bulk of sourcing is usually a waste of everyone's time. Actually, I do consider this when I scope out new areas to edit. It may not be for everyone but it helps me to avoid "losing" content disputes. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, this thread sure took a couple of surprising turns! So far there are two editors for and two editors against, so either more editors show up to make a consensus for the edit, or it just doesn't get in. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you can conclude that WaPo's statement is not supported by the the primary source and in any case it would be your interpretation of the primary source vs that of the reliable source (WaPo). Also, the WaPo article didn't indicate any specific source for the comment I excerpted. Note that there were other reports mentioned in the article and the WaPo covered government briefings not mentioned in that article too.
Now getting back to your original request for a quote of any assertion that indicates "classified evidence exists", you asked for it and you got it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Re "the WaPo article didn't indicate any specific source": It's OR to assume there was (or as slatersteven might say "was not") a source for said statement. On what basis do we know it was not opinion? Humanengr (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It's a reliable source (The Washington Post). Thanks for your speculations, etc, but I honestly don't think they're useful, so this may be my last comment on them. Peace. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The source doesn't support the claim being made, which is that there is evidence implicating the Russian government. The Washington Post says that "Trump’s attempt to soften the accusation against Russia — whatever the motivation — is helped by the fact that the government agencies involved in the probes relied largely on classified information to find the Russians culpable of meddling." The Washington Post is discussing the lack of publicly available evidence here, and says that any information used is classified. It doesn't say that there is actually classified evidence that points to Russia. When we have other reliable sources explicitly using cautious language to discuss the accusations, (e.g., Reuters regularly referring to "allegations"), then we shouldn't be taking the stand that we know evidence that's never been reported on exists - unless we want to be lackeys of US intelligence, of course. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
So I shall ask again, can someone actually bother to write a section here for discussion that sumerises what RS say about what evidence is publicly available? Until we know what we are actually talking about this is going to go nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a small box at top right labeled ‘Publicly Available Evidence presented by U.S. Intelligence Agencies’ that currently indicates ‘Status: not yet presented’, citing the Reuters article. If and when such is made available, replace with a new section in the body. Humanengr (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I oppose adding any such narrowly focused content, especially with a single five month old source. The article already discusses evidence throughout. The idea of "unpresented public evidence" is not really an aspect of this investigation and is WP:UNDUE. In fact, it's a red herring.- MrX12:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
That is one of the more ill-informed suggestions I've seen thus far, it's like adding some sort of scarlet letter to the article. ValarianB (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This whole discussion seems ill-conceived. Have we ever had another article where we insisted on a separate section, or a disclaimer, or something, spelling out the "public evidence" behind our sources? We state clearly, within the text as we go along, where we are getting our information; that's our job as an encyclopedia. It's not our job to investigate and evaluate the "public" or "non-public" nature of the evidence our sources are relying on. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, that article could be used as a link somewhere in the article. No need to make more out of it than that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN, re "It's not our job to investigate and evaluate the 'public' or 'non-public' nature of the evidence our sources are relying on.": Any objections to putting a note that effect at the top of this and any article that relies on 'non-public' evidence? Humanengr (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be most of our articles. Reliance on Reliable Sources? They commonly use anonymous (i.e. non-public) sources for their reporting, but if they have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" we accept it. Reliance on government sources? Usually based on non-public evidence, whether it is the monthly unemployment report (they don't show us their actual surveys) or the result of an election (we didn't count the ballots ourselves). Reliance on academic sources? We trust that they are accurately reporting their experimental results, but we don't have a way of verifying that. As an encyclopedia we rely on secondary sources; we don't expect to see the primary data. There is no reason to treat this article any differently, in terms of the "evidence" we demand, than we treat the vast majority of our articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the considered response. I was so impressed by your prior response that I neglected to include the critical criterion 'consequence of error'. More precisely, when there is risk of grave consequence from error in the near-term (prior to customary quality control, e.g., scientific or court review), some caveat should be included. Critique? Humanengr (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Classified information isn't available for expert analysis by organizations independent of the government, such as academics, news media, etc. and for publication by those organizations' of their results. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Neither are anonymous sources used in Reliable Source news reporting, on which we base many articles - but we don't flag those reports as "non-public". There is nothing about this article which is different from hundreds of other unquestioned articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
"Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House."
In any case, the possible section that is being considered is for the evidence that is publicly available, a topic that the The Washington Post thought was worthwhile for an article . I think this will be my last message here because it's very doubtful that the possible section would get a consensus, and that discourages anyone from spending the time to write up such a section and defend it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I hope that pointless trip through the peanut gallery will be enough. I note that an admin there thinks we're all kind of stupid for even working on this article. That's standard Misplaced Pages fare, but it wasn't useful or worthwhile. Geogene (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Re "Can we delete the 1st sentence of the 2nd para of the lede?" — I would go with that and add a small mention of the October 7, 2016 statement in the next sentence, i.e.,
According to the ODNI′s January 2017 report that followed its October 2016 statement, ...
The timing of the October 2016 report may be of interest because it came before the November 2016 election.
Re "The 1st sentence of the 3rd para (about Obama warning Putin) is not directly about investigation." — The paragraph that it begins is mostly about Obama's reaction so it may be appropriate there.
Re "For temporal flow, the next sentence, could start with 'In December 2016, Obama had ordered a report …'." — not applicable if the 1st sentence mentioned above is kept.
Thx. Amending my suggestion re 3rd para: as you say, it is mostly (sentences 1, 2, 4) about Obama’s reaction; 3 is re Trump’s. The para is a jumble and not related to elucidating any claims about any interference. So, delete in entirety. Humanengr (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It has a little about senators' reaction too. The paragraph is about the US government's reaction, which is mainly Obama's because the president is the part of the US government that executes foreign policy AFAIK, and the paragraph seems an appropriate part of the article topic and the lead. Regarding the paragraph being a jumble, feel free to suggest a way to organize it better. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is ostensibly about ‘Russian unterference’, not reaction to it. Anything that gets in the way of detailing that interference gets in the way. Investigations are part of that effort; reaction is not. Humanengr (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Would you be ok with (deleting the 1st sentence of the 2nd para and) putting the Oct statement in a footnote in the 2nd sentence: "According to the ODNI′s January 6, 2017 report …"? Humanengr (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The two of you can agree to whatever you please, but that will not show consensus among the dozens of editors who participate on this page and who do not approve your comments. SPECIFICOtalk20:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, please see Misplaced Pages policy WP:BATTLEGROUND. FWIW, Humanengr and I have disagreed with each other in other sections, but that hasn't prevented us from cooperating on the edit in this section because we are just trying to improve Misplaced Pages. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm quite confident that my comment is constructive, because it saves you lots of time and effort that could be dedicated instead to article improvements that will be endorsed by your colleagues here. Otherwise I suspect you'll end up disappointed and discouraged. So like it or not, my message is constructive. A tete-a-tete in a walled garden is not going to end up improving the article. SPECIFICOtalk22:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I've already said how I know. Because even in case the two of you agree, you've got the other 56 editors who haven't agreed with you. And you can count on them to remove any edit w/o consensus. That's how it goes. Life in the big city. SPECIFICOtalk01:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
"56 … haven't" (so you say, which is not entirely true) doesn't equal doesn't in this instance. As one prone to overstatement, perhaps you should sit this one out. Humanengr (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I very exhaustively and earnestly discussed this with Humanengr on his talk page a while back and I have nothing more to say about it. SPECIFICOtalk03:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
And I very much appreciate that you did. For on my talk page your explanation of your view starts with "The article is about the interference in the election.” In that statement, you take interference as fact, whereas all you can properly say is that news media designated as ‘RS' by the WP community take it as fact. That does not make it fact. After some repeated confusions on your part about which report was at issue, you said "I'm uneasy that each explanation of mine prompts another leading question from you.”
I had hoped to reach some common ground with you under the assumption we share some core positions. But I have learned that’s not possible. How unfortunate. Humanengr (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Humanengr, Could you help me out and clarify what that discussion on your talk page has to do with the proposed edit here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposal for modification of second paragraph of lead
It might be worth showing Humanengr's proposed edit of shortening a sentence in the lead and moving it to a footnote. Here's what I think is his proposal to make a change in the lead's second paragraph.
Interesting juxtaposition with public stances of Twitter and facebook regarding disclosures. Also ironic in light of Republican concern about Russian mineral investments with reserves in US, while social media investments are not mentioned. SPECIFICOtalk01:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Russian Twitter Support for Trump Began Right After He Started Campaign
Casprings, could we include this section in the one directly above. Feel free to retitle the combined section. A large investment in a company is an excellent way to get access to its management and its inner workings. Such investors are welcome to visit the executive suite and be introduced to management at various levels of detail. Then today in the Guardian we have the discussion of the Jared Kuschner connection with the Russian investment in these social media broadcasters. SPECIFICOtalk13:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
New sources are available about the scale of the hacking operation that targeted the DNC , . The idea that anyone other than Russia hacked the DNC is no longer tenable and anything suggesting otherwise should be purged from the article as undue. Geogene (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The rational talking points that it was anyone but Russia petered out long ago. Recent evidence, as presented above, is the proverbial nail. ValarianB (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, peter it did, everywhere but on this talk page. I agree expunge, purge, flush and finish. It's all Psy-ops. Apparently the Russians thought a little-read document like the GOP Platform was significant. They certainly might take delight in seeing false narratives on WP articles (remember Murder of Seth Rich where too bad for them it got painfully obvious.) Any more of the denialist narratives can go direclty to the squirrels' nest for examination. SPECIFICOtalk18:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden: Poulson is outdated per this discussion, I no longer support inclusion of his viewpoint because the current, larger understanding of Russian hacking has moved forward since then. Geogene (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree but we can have that discussion. I recommend a dedicated section. There are more recent discussions re: Poulson in the archives than the one I linked. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Carter Page's Nov 2 testimony
The article is missing any information on Carter Page's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee from Nov 2nd. Sources:
It's a report from an 'intelligence agency' containing results the Intercept cited and discussed. It seems appropriate to address that under the heading of ‘U.S. intelligence analysis’. How does that constitute 'Background' to 'Russian Interference'? Humanengr (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Should the article include Dan Goodin's criticism of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?
Yes - As discussed several times already. As a security expert writing for a RS there is no reason not to include him. There are no new developments with the report cited for not listing it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Pack, Goodin is not a "security expert" - He's a journalist and not even a WP:notable journalist. The material is also misrepresented, UNDUE, out of date, cherry-picked, subjective, and only marginally related to the topic of this article, to wit Russian Interference, not Unclassified Reports About Russian Interference. SPECIFICOtalk02:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with those points. And as far as cherry picking/misrepresentation goes, here's a quote from a Dan Goodin piece published online yesterday: Fancy Bear is one of two Russian-sponsored hacking outfits researchers say breached Democratic National Committee networks ahead of last year's presidential election. Nobody is trying to push that into the article, so this proposed addition just looks like quote shopping to me. Geogene (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The alleged connection between Fancy Bear and the DNC email releases is already discussed in this Wiki article. You're welcome to add Goodin's most recent article on the subject as an additional source. The fact that not every article written by Goodin is cited here isn't an argument for not citing Goodin once. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
No - This content has always been WP:UNDUE. On top of that, it's now so outdated, relative to the overall investigation, that it's fairly misleading.- MrX22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Goodin's commentary was very typical of commentary at the time on the Joint Analysis Report. We could equally have cited a number of other sources that gave very similar views - that the JAR did not provide compelling evidence to link Russia to the email releases. The JAR is a central part of this story, being one of only a few US intelligence reports on the subject. I don't see how the mainstream view of one of the only reports issued by US intelligence about alleged Russian hacking could be considered WP:UNDUE.
I also don't see how this material could be regarded as outdated. What makes it outdated? It's an 11-month-old source discussing an 11-month-old topic. The JAR is still one of the few US intelligence reports on the subject, and unless the general view of the JAR has been substantially revised, the view that was widely published back then (of which Goodin's article is only an example) is not outdated.
The reasoning about being misleading "relative to the overall investigation" sounds quite disturbing: what you're effectively saying is that by presenting the mainstream criticism of the JAR, some readers might draw conclusions that you think other aspects of the story show to be wrong.
This just looks like an attempt to hide the mainstream view of the JAR from readers. Given the discussion above about "purging" the article, the intent of this RfC is quite clear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No - time has shown this is undue. By the way, there is plenty of evidence in unclassified sources, the AP recently published some damning stuff, but it's only of tangential interest to the subject. Not fair to imply there is none, though. Geogene (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm only going to comment on this, and I'll bow out of this particular bit of nastiness. I think Geogene's reason here speaks volumes and is what other editors are driving at. That it's "not fair" because there is "plenty of evidence" elsewhere and the AP over there is doing great work, so we can't have bad things being said about this particular report. Other editors are giving similar reasons, based on "other revelations" and "relative to the overall investigation" that we can't be allowing bad things to be said about this report. So completely typical with pretty much anything to do with partisan issues these days in this encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm protecting the credibility of this encyclopedia from conspiracy theorists. Once I'm done with that, they'll take over, and then nobody will care about it either way. Editors such as myself are the only reason this place gets taken seriously by anyone, to the extent that anyone does. You said you were done here. Bye, Marteau. Geogene (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The Ars Technica writer in this case expressed a common lament over the evidence presented in the report in question. The hopes that it would provide more evidence than it did were common, and the let down was also common. This is not the stuff of "conspiracy theories" and was at the time (and still is) an issue on the minds of rational, thinking men and women. Rather than "protect" this article from "conspiracy theorists", by scrubbing the article of legitimate issues with this report, you're going to make reasonable readers begin to wonder where, exactly, the "conspiracy" lies and that is damaging to the already shaky reputation of the encyclopedia for its coverage of political issues. Marteau (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No - Even if this guy was an internationally recognized expert (and he isn’t), the revelations over the last year have long since rendered any point moot. And, I’m pretty sure this has been discussed before (which is what I said the last time it was discussed). O3000 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No - SYNTHy usage of dated off-topic opinion of non-notable journalist about an issue beyond his professional and technical expertise. SPECIFICOtalk14:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No As others have said this is historical and no longer current or relevant. I will add that id we had put it in the article at the time there would now be a good argument to remove it as outdated.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Reckon the proposed text that has been inserted and removed several times should be included:
Dan Goodin, of the technology site Ars Technica, said he was disappointed in the report which provided "almost none of the promised evidence" linking Russia to the DNC hack.Marteau (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Has anything changed since the last time we had this discussion? If no, then there's even less of a reason to include it now then there was then. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You wouldn't know it by the number of times it has been inserted and removed. This will hopefully make any consensus or lack thereof official.- MrX22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
A more honest title for this RfC would be, "Should we remove all politically uncomfortable criticisms of the US intelligence reports?" This is about politically purging the article of critical content, not about removing content that is somehow defective. The claim that 11-month-old information is no longer relevant is simply a canard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
You guys have been at this for more than a year now. Above, there's even an open discussion about "purging" the article. I'm supposed to believe this is just about the sources being too old? Yes, I'm sure that of all the 11-month-old sources in the article, it's only a coincidence that the ones you guys are trying to purge from the article happen to be the only critical comments on US intelligence reports. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
You've been at this more than a year now, and you admit that you're aware of the Talk page discussion that shows you don't have consensus to include. So, quit edit warring content into the article. Geogene (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, is there any reason not to include the caveat from the top of the JAR: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within."? Humanengr (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This and the next RfC are poorly worded. The purpose of RfCs is to invite previously uninvolved editors to weigh in. That requires a question that is both neutral and easily understood. Don't expect everyone to know who Dan Goodin or Kevin Poulsen are, which DHS report they criticized or what the issue was. At the very least, the disputed edits should be presented at the beginning of the RfC and since the two writers said basically the same thing, the two should be combined.
A better question would be whether the article should mention that the intelligence report alleging Russian interference in the election provided no evidence, as noted in multiple sources. Of course there may be good reasons why no evidence was supplied and why we should believe the conclusions anyway. So we can't quote Goodin and Poulsen a saying that was a weakness without providing the other side.
They are both very short, simple, straightforward questions. I have no idea how they could be worded more neutrally. Making the question broader doesn't address the recurrent edit warring over this particular material. Making it more specific by listing the last edit made opens it up for someone to change a word or two in the text and claim that he RfC was about something else. The WP:GAMING on this article has already been a huge time suck, so avoiding more of the same seems beneficial.- MrX15:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Consider a reader who knows nothing about the topic other than what s//he has read here. The article says, "Dan Goodin, of the technology site Ars Technica, said he was disappointed in the report which provided "almost none of the promised evidence" linking Russia to the DNC hack." The reader doesn't know who Goodin or what the tech site are or whether Goodin's observations are based on reality. Adding another similar source that says the same thing doesn't help. TFD (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose cherrypicked Jan. 6 2017 Daily Beast source. Out of date, off-topic, SYNTH, used to promote fringe denialist theories. SPECIFICOtalk14:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thucydided, you might really consider NOT edit warring over this material seeing as how this is *precisely* what you got topic-banned for from this article for, although it was later reduced to a warning by User:Lord Roem. And when I say "precisely", I mean, precisely. Volunteer Marek 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't get topic banned, or banned from this article. You know what a strike means. It means an editor (or admin, in this case), acknowledges that their comment was incorrect and is publicly withdrawing it. On the other hand, you were part of WP:EEML, which was a conspiracy to push an anti-Russian POV and manipulate administrative proceedings to get opponents banned. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Lol. Nope and nope. You know it's trivial to check this, right? Here. Quote: " I've decided to reduce the topic ban to a warning". It doesn't say "strike". It says "reduced". So why do you even try to make shit up which is obviously false? And your EEML accusation is, frankly, idiotic. You and your little buddies really need to cut it out with your little campaign of misinformation.
So to recap. You edited warred over the same exact material previously. You got topic banned for it. You went to the admin's talk page and wikilawyered and pleaded and promised to be good. They felt bad and reduced it to a warning. And... you're right back here doing the same ol' shit you got sanctioned for. So much for your promises. Volunteer Marek 02:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Well this hectoring is rather rich, given your behavior here and your EEML emails below. I was familiar with the general story of the EEML, but I wasn't aware just how calculating you guys were. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem as though we've added information on the classification of RT as a foreign agent in the US (or considered reciprocal moves in Russia).
WP
Reuters
BBC "RT has been singled out as a propaganda outlet in the wake of alleged Russian meddling in the US presidential vote."
I think noticing registration of RT and Sputnik as "foreign agents" is fine, because it is directly related to the subject, however, actions by Russian government "in response" are too remotely related and probably should not be included. In any case, the registration or sanctions must already happen to be included here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: not checked
.svg)
Not done for now: The Colin Powell information is cited in the next sentence and the Washington Times is not a RS for political coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Done - 
