Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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 with high confidence 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) stated that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally 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 forwarded 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 hacker groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear associated with Russian intelligence. In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face "serious consequences". 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.

Starting in late 2015, European spy agencies intercepted communications between suspected Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Six federal agencies have been investigating possible links and financial ties with the Kremlin, notably targeting Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone. 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)

1. I believe the individuals being investigated should be named, but the rest of the sentence is fine.
2. "... and provided their contents to WikiLeaks." is a little vague. Perhaps we could say: "... and gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks."
3. "Cut it out" is not a quotation of what was said on the call; it's a quotation of Obama's reflections of what what said. Do you really believe that he spoke to Putin in idiomatic slang? How about this as a more faithful account: "In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop such cyberattacks or face serious consequences."? Mentioning the red phone is fairly trivial.
4. I can live with the Clapper statement if others can.- MrX 21:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Thanks; I have incorporated all your suggestions except Kushner who is not named in the cited sources, and the word "stolen" which is redundant with "hacked"; replaced "provided" with "forwarded"; used "stop interfering" per source, to avoid repeating "cyberattacks". Hope this addresses your objections so you can move to a full Support !vote. — JFG ^talk 06:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I'd like to know if you now approve the full text with the latest amendments. Your voice is particularly significant as you were first to revert the proposed lead changes. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Everything except the first sentence looks acceptable to me. Articles such as this should be written from a historical perspective. The use of present tense in the first sentence is jarring and sounds like breaking news. I also strongly prefer "officially concluded" or "concluded" over "highly confident".- MrX 11:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done OK, amended again with "has concluded with high confidence" directly in the first sentence, so there's no need to repeat it in the second one. Good? — JFG ^talk 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me. Thank you.- MrX 22:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support para 1 with the following edit — with due credit to Geogene. Afaics no one else has suggested using the phrase in the Oct 2016 joint statement that is 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.”? The progression from "is confident that" in the 1st sentence citing the Oct 2016 statement to "expressed 'high confidence' that” in the 2nd sentence citing the Jan 2017 report uses simple phrasings, allows all sides to move on peaceably, and can be further appended in a timely manner with -results- of the next official work product. Humanengr (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support other paras as long as para 1 comports with either my suggestion above or your further mod below in Discussion. 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 23:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Do you agree with the latest amendment to the lead sentence saying "has concluded with high confidence", per discussion with MrX above? If we get consensus between the two of you on this part too, that would be immense progress… — JFG ^talk 14:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes -- and with that in the lead sentence, I'm ok with the non-qualified (and ergo more certain) "stated … that x" in the 2nd sentence and "stated that y" in 2nd para 1st sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• The current lede is much better than this version - The version above removes the "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015" fact from the first paragraph. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: That's only because this phrase was added to the lead after the RfC was opened; we could certainly incorporate it in the proposed new lead, perhaps in a more logical spot, I'll think about it. What do you think of the rest of the text? — JFG ^talk 11:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added the European intercepts to the paragraph about inquiries on Trump campaign associates. @Gouncbeatduke, Humanengr, and MrX: Please take a look. — JFG ^talk 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We should use the same wording as discussed and agreed upon a few days ago: "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015". Pinging SusanLesch who led that discussion.- MrX 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had to edit it slightly to fit the placement in the paragraph discussing inquiries on links between Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Just now tweaked the wording to be closer to Susan's version: Starting in late 2015, European spy agencies intercepted communications between suspected Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Fine? — JFG ^talk 12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with.- MrX 14:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support A bit long maybe, but if this is what it takes to get consensus fine.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support This revised lede is clearer and more focused (e.g. "red phone") than the existing lede. Good collaborative effort. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The most significant part of this is that the FBI has an open investigation that "included looking at whether associates of Mr. Trump were in contact with Russian officials, and whether they colluded with them."(Comey) The paragraph needs to directly state that, not mention "ties" nor mention 4 individuals, which makes it appear that the investigation only includes them. I also agree with MrX's comments above.Casprings (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete proposal for improvement to take your concerns into account? — JFG ^talk 05:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a disaster of wiki-process, to launch another RfC on this topic and then short-circuit it by continuing to change the article. The result has been that one of the two RfC options no longer exists. Given this situation, we should close this RfC. There's no point opening an RfC without waiting for it to demonstrate consensus on whatever the question. Then, we can then either revert to the pre-RfC version or we can work to improve the current article version, which is no longer what the RfC proposed. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of your comment. We shouldn't open an RfC without waiting for consensus first??? Assessing consensus is precisely the goal of opening an RfC. I don't see why this one should be procedurally flawed. I also don't see your specific objection to the proposed text, which has been evolving to take into account other editors' remarks. If you have something constructive to add, I'm all ears. — JFG ^talk 05:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Simpler statement: It's disruptive to make changes to one of the alternatives while the RfC is ostensibly comparing its now-defunct text to a proposed alternative. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would support the changes, but suggest amending the first sentence per N-HH and TFD's comments below, as follows: The United States Intelligence Community has stated it is "highly confident" that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Using the phrase "has stated" is the most truthful way of presenting this information. I would also propose adding Russia's denial at the end of the first paragraph, and expanding upon Russia's position somewhat later in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

<<"has stated" is the most truthful>> doesn't seem to relate to the issue at hand. Please rephrase your point about "has stated" and "most truthful" in terms of WP policy and RS treatments of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Given the outcome of the other RfC "concluded vs accused", I believe we should stick with "concluded with high confidence" at this point. About Russia's denial, I'm not sure how to incorporate your suggestion without going into excessive detail. Perhaps simply add "Russia dismissed the allegations." with one of the relevant citations. Do you have a better suggestion? — JFG ^talk 20:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I don't see any big red flags but I see some major improvements. I would add that the "intercepted communications" (fifth paragraph) were "suspicious" – because that's what the source says. Politrukki (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Thanks. Not sure "suspicious" adds much value to this particular sentence. It's not even in the current lead or full article. I think communications between Trump-related people and Russian operatives are suspicious by definition. — JFG ^talk 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this must be decided in this RFC but the relevant discussion was archived before I had a change to raise this point. My opinion is that "suspicious" is somewhat important because every Russian having discussions with Americans is potentially a spy. Politrukki (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Can be debated after the RfC, if the new text is approved. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 11 May 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)

Stop beating the dead horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: That's not an answer. Do you have an actual answer? If you don't, then you should withdraw your objection to the use of the word "alleged." -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it's not an answer, it's a freakin' plea for you to stop wasting everybody's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've presented several major news sources (BBC, Financial Times, Associated Press, Reuters, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde) that use "alleged" or equivalent language. If you don't have any answer to that, then you should withdraw your objection to that language. Right now, you're simply blockading without any reasonable rationale. You've cited WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT at me several times now, and it's highly relevant here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And this all has already been discussed. So... stop beating the dead horse. It's dead. It's not getting up. It's pre-glue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The objection before was that reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as a fact. That's not true, as the sources I've cited show. So now that you've been presented with evidence, has your opinion changed? If not, why not? You can't just ignore the evidence and continue citing policies. Reliable sources say "alleged." That's what the article should say, unless you have a substantive objection. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some sources will add the word alleged for safety as per their policy, and if you look hard enough you will find them. But, the beat-of-hooves is but a memory. Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Their policy of not saying things they don't know to be true. "Some sources" includes the BBC, the Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, the largest papers in Germany and France, and NBC News. If they're not willing to say that "Russian interference" is a fact, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. We're having this discussion because MrX reverted changes to the lede that several editors had hashed out together in one of the few productive discussions I've ever seen on this talk page. If you're going to declare this a dead horse, then you should do the honors and restore the reformulated lede yourself. One can't revert and then refuse to discuss. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You can stop pinging me Thucydides411. I'm actively watching this page. You conveniently neglect to mention that several of these same news agencies do treat the Russia interference as fact. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I'm going to join in the chorus of others asking you to let this go. This incessant REHASH has become disruptive and could result in you being topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned.- MrX 12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I hate to jump into this discussion, but I'm afraid the sources you just cited are reinforcing Thucydides411's case: Le Monde 1 says "allegations of Russian interference" and "Russia was accused by US intelligence services or interfering in the presidential election", Le Monde 2 says "Hacking attributed to Russia" and "The report by intelligence agencies affirms that the Russian president influenced the American election campaign.", Reuters 1 says nothing (just quotes Senators about requesting sanctions over "attempts to influence" the election), Reuters 2 mentions "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election" within a list of issues addressed by Tillerson (doesn't say it's a fact or an allegation, it just names the issue), NBC 1 says "allegedly meddling in the election", NBC 2 says "alleged ties between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government", AP 1 talks about "the House probe into Russian interference" (doesn't call it a fact, just says there's a probe), AP 2 talks about "an investigation into Russian meddling" (same thing). So out of 8 sources, that's 4 explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged", 1 saying nothing of substance, 1 just naming it as an issue among other things, and 2 talking about the existence of investigations. — JFG ^talk 14:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with JFG's assessment of the sources. MrX, when you say that a source treats Russian interference as a fact, you should say in what way you can tell it treats Russian interference as fact. Reading through your links, I don't see the news agencies making any assertions that Russia interfered in US elections.

You and the chorus of people asking me to let this go should instead be asking yourselves why you're holding onto your position in the face of mounting evidence. You guys haven't been able to quote a major newspaper saying directly that Russia interfered in US elections, and there have now been dozens of articles posted on this talk page where major newspapers explicitly call "Russian interference" an allegation. So rather than threatening to try to topic ban me (for what - doing research on what reliable sources say and then posting it here?), why don't you actually consider the evidence here, and possibly change your mind? If you don't change your mind, you at least need to express some rationale that passes a basic plausibility test. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And the dispute is not new either: here's FallingGravity pointing to plenty of RS explicitly calling the allegations "allegations" in January 2017.[9] The reply from the "it's an undisputed fact, DEADHORSE" chorus? Crickets… — JFG ^talk 15:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

JFG, your analysis of my sources is flawed across the board. For example in Le Monde 1, the word "allégations" is from a quote from an unnamed third party, not the voice of the newspaper. "Hacking attributed to Russia" means "the hacking that Russia did", not "the hacking that Russia is alleged to have done". My reading of the body of sources makes it very clear that sources overwhelmingly treat the Russia interference as fact.- MrX 16:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Barbershop Chorus by www.TwistedMustache.com New Jersey- New York - Georgia- Delaware -CT.jpg

Barbershop Chorus by www.TwistedMustache.com New Jersey- New York - Georgia- Delaware -CT

Anyway, a chorus Trumps a quartet, and there is a countably infinite number of RS that say "russian interference" in the editors' voices.[10] SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a basically illiterate understanding of what "attributed to" means. See: [11].

verb (used with object), attributed, attributing.

1.to regard as resulting from a specified cause; consider as caused by something indicated (usually followed by to)

2. to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated

3. to consider as made by the one indicated, especially with strong evidence but in the absence of conclusive proof

4. to regard as produced by or originating in the time, period, place, etc., indicated; credit; assign

Adlerschloß (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, I don't care any longer whether Russian interference is called "alleged" in Wikipedia's voice, but I can't just remain silent when you guys keep straight denying that a very large fraction of RS articles either express no opinion on the U.S. intelligence officials' accusations against Russia or call them explicitly "allegations". (I knew I shouldn't have jumped into the source battle, but now I'm there…) Back to Le Monde, the first article quotes a Washington official using the word "allegations", that's even stronger than the journalist's neutral voice; the second article merely says that the attribution of hacks to Russia "has become the official position of the American administration". And the title word "imputé" does convey an attribution, effectively saying "somebody (US intelligence) is accusing somebody else (Russia) of something". Best translation would be "Hacking blamed on Russia". Don't take my word for it, just check the numerous examples in a French analytical dictionary. — JFG ^talk 16:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

JFG, examining NBC2 as per your example: Meddling is used twice, once with, once without alleged; interference/interfere is used four times (Russia’s election interference, Russian interference in the election, Putin … became personally involved in the campaign to interfere, Moscow’s interference). So by your reckoning this source is "explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged""? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Given the excerpts you cite, you must be talking about NBC1. So let's look at the context around the words (emphasis mine): "Sen. Ben Cardin […] called for an independent commission into election meddling", "sanctions imposed by the Obama administration against Russia for allegedly meddling in the election", "a 9/11-style commission to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election", "U.S. intelligence officials believe [that] Putin became personally involved in the campaign to interfere in the election", "Trump frequently denied the claims about Moscow's interference", so yes by my reckoning this source is not taking an affirmative position about the nature, scope or impact of the interference, it correctly attributes the claims of interference to US intelligence services, it mentions calls for investigations and it does call the meddling alleged in the journalist's voice. — JFG ^talk 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

OK good, cause even the non-RS say that Russian Interference is a fact [12] With JFG no longer contesting the fact, next step would be to deep six (American Nixonism) the latest lede RfC. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---

I found 5 pages hits for the term "alleged" in a Google news search for the last hour.[13] 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)

That's your personal OR. However, having an opinion quoted in a reliable source does not make that opinion a fact, unless the reliable source says it is. And reliable sources policy does not mention U.S. Intelligence agencies as reliable sources. Anyway you know that, I know that you know that etc. TFD (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: You really hit on the heart of the problem. The fact that a reliable source quotes person A does not mean we should treat that person A's statement as true. Putin has been quoted by reliable sources as saying that Russia did not interfere in US elections. That doesn't make Putin's statement true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:18, 14 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)

[14]. 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)

@JFG: On the chance that Geogene agrees (see discussion above), given the time constraint, would it make sense to incorporate this into this RfC, start another or ?? Humanengr (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I would support this alternate wording; please add it to the survey section, similarly to MrX's amendments "Support, conditional on suggestion XYZ", so that other editors can follow the draft evolution without going through walls of text. — JFG ^talk 05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As the second sentence already says "high confidence", we would have to rephrase it slightly. I would suggest:

The United States Intelligence Community is "highly confident" 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) stated that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Great. Hopefully others will agree. Humanengr (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

OK as I understand the situation the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were highly confident the Russians had been behind the hacks. What about the rest of the US intelligence community? The FBI see to have said the Russians did do it. GRIZZLY STEPPE accuses the Russians. So the lead must reflect the fact that much of the US intelligence community has said the Russians did it.

"Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election. Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, much of the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.[1] However 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..."

Seems to reflect the situation better.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: It seems we are converging. My focus is almost (but not completely) on the 1st sentence. Re your proposed 1st sentence, 'alleged' works for me but not for many here as we have seen. Re your cmt at Teahouse re 'high confidence': JPG's mod (immediately above at 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)) shifts that from 2nd sentence to 1st. IMO, that accomplishes much. I can explain further and comment on the rest, but wanted to get your reaction to that. Humanengr (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're "converging" with one editor? That's not converging. That's diverging. Your proposed words are much worse than what's currently there, and your negotiations among the scant minority of editors who will even bother responding to you are fruitless. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I think we mostly agree on the first paragraph. The only change I'd make to your proposal would be to remove the word "However," because the statement that follows "However" doesn't really contradict the preceding sentence. This proposal is very close to what a number of editors worked out together earlier. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"A number of editors worked out" What number do you claim? I count about 4 out of 30-40 editors who've collaborated to produce the current consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with SPECIFICO here. I still fail to see an argument against the current consensus. Objective3000 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion: Arbitrary break

• General comment -- I'm finding this RFC to be hard to follow. I'm not even sure what we are supposed to !vote on. Generally, I'd like to convey that the use of "alleged interference" is not some nefarious way of casting doubt on the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies. Essentially, Wikipedia is reporting on a current event (investigation of said interference) and it's good journalistic practice to qualify the incident in question as "probable" / "likely" / "evidence of", etc, and not as a statement of fact. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that we are not journalists and this and the alleged RfC can be ignored. Various parts of the article actually need work right now. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Should I read "alleged RfC" as a manifestation of your sense of humour or as a personal attack? I find it really insulting that you would disparage my efforts to build consensus, especially as I've been following your own advice! — JFG ^talk 17:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Another scarecrow. I said to take it to a Sandbox page and work out something that has a snowbowel's chance of being accepted. I suggest you withdraw it and do that now before more time is wasted on this. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going to reply here, rather then above as this discussion is far too long and rambling.

It is clear that whilst one arm of the US intelligence services has used ore diplomatic language to make the claim much of the rest (and it seems to be the majority) have not caveated their comments and have asserted that Russia did it. Our lead must reflect that, any thing else is weasel wording.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I should have limited my response to your use of 'allege' in your lead sentence. You're ok with using that term there -- right? Humanengr (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am OK with it, it is an allegation/Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Just popping in here. Slatersteven, I assume we're discussing this sentence: "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played ...." Is that correct?

So the first part is without "alleged" (I totally agree), and the second part is with it. What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? I'm just throwing this out there to probe your thinking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

What "first part" and "second part"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(Perhaps BullRangifer mistook your "OK as I understand …" para as a proposed lead para?)

Re 'alleged': As others here have objected to that word, can you offer an alternative phrasing to the lead sentence that captures your intent? Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I was referring to the first and second halves of your sentence I copied in my comment. Here it is again: (1) "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to (2) the alleged role that the Russian government played ...."

Did I understand you correctly, or am I way off base? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes those are the words I used, I am not sure what there is to not understand. It is an allegation, so it has been alleged. As to alternative wording. However I am wondering what we are arguing about, as it stand the opening paragraph of the lead seems to sum it up. |Maybe wee need to make it clear that not all the US intel agencies were quite so equivocal, but I do not see what about the lead paragraph is a problem.

"A number of US intelligence agencies officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.[1] In January 2017, whilst another U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances.[2] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015"

It is odd that it says that "everyone" and then goes on to say "except these people". This is the germ of the debate, the fact we do over egg the cake over the degree to which US intelligence had concluded the Russians did it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, we aren't arguing about anything. I just wanted to make sure I understood you. My questions were just as much to figure out your meaning as to learn from you. I'll repeat them here.

What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? Why use alleged? I thought there was a lot of certainty about the involvement of the Russian government, enough that we wouldn't need to use the word "alleged" there. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to figure this out. I've read most RS, but there are other RS and other ways of looking at this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot as not absolute. And whilst there may be "a lot of certainty" this is not 100% (even in the US intelligence community). it is not "a lot of certainty" that is needed but "beyond reasonable doubt", and that seems to me to not be the case yet.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Implementing the reformulated first paragraph

I think it's time to reinstate the reformulated first paragraph of the article. Here it is:

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

I'm not saying this first paragraph is perfect, but it is much stronger than the current first paragraph, and I think it has greater support from active editors on this talk page than the current lede. The advantages of this first paragraph, in my view, are:

1. The first sentence states generally what the article is about.
2. It gives a brief description of the major background elements of the affair (the release of emails by Wikileaks, the claims made by US intelligence).
3. It uses the appropriate word, "alleged," to refer to the allegations of Russian interference. Many reliable sources use exactly this word regularly, and almost all treat "Russian interference" as an allegation.

A number of editors worked together to formulate this intro paragraph. It was then reverted by MrX (diff). In the ensuing discussion, several more editors have expressed support for the reformulated first paragraph, and I think that it has majority support here. The main bone of contention with this text has been the word "alleged," but I think the above source discussion has shown that "alleged" is completely in line with reporting from numerous reliable sources (among them the BBC, Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, NBC News, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde, although this list is by no means exhaustive).

Since the source discussion has established that "alleged" is a completely mainstream designation for Russia's alleged interference, I think this objection is now moot. I'd therefore propose to reinstate the reformulated intro paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, just no. Those who understand these things best have "concluded" that Russia interfered in the election, and numerous RS have so stated. This is a very controversial proposal. One cannot make such a decision based on the presence or absence of one word. It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed. Investigations since then have been on the basis that the allegations were correct, and discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it, and that Putin directed it.

What's left is to confirm the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election. So far what's been discovered tends strongly to confirm that allegation. So far we're calling that part an allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the lead section, you should both comment in the RfC. Somehow all discussions have turned into a kind of source battle on the word "alleged" but that's not what the amended text says, so I would appreciate that opinionated editors give a honest look and state their position.

Now, BullRangifer, I wish you could convince me about your statements:

1. "It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed" – what confirmation did we get besides the allegations, started by CrowdStrike and the DNC in June 2016 and repeated ad nauseam by US intelligence services and politicians since then, that Russian intelligence services were the perpetrators of DNC hacks and acted as sources to WikiLeaks, while being directed by Putin himself? On what basis, and by whom, were these inferences made? And with which evidence?
2. "Those who understand these things best" – you mean the intelligence services of a nation alleging misdeeds by intelligence services of another nation? or a political party who happened to lose an unlosable election alleging misdeeds by a rival political party who happened to win it? or established members of a political party alleging misdeeds by a newcomer into their party who happened to win the support of their voters, to their dismay? or vested interests who fear what an "unfit" president may bestow upon them?
3. "discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it" – Which discoveries have confirmed anything? I read an awful lot about this issue, and see only innuendo. If you have seen some tangible confirmations which are not mere allegations, I'd love to see them.

Thanks for helping me out. — JFG ^talk 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Can you take a shot at answering my questions following your statements above? Thanks, — JFG ^talk 11:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"No, just no" is not a very productive attitude to take. If I understand your above post, you're saying that since US intelligence agencies ("Those who understand these things best") have said Russia interfered in the US elections, we should take that as fact. That's not how Wikipedia works. We go on the basis of reliable sources, and the large majority of reliable sources are treating "Russian interference" as an allegation. I say "large majority," because I'm holding out the possibility that one or two newspapers might state unequivocally that Russia interfered. I haven't seen any such clear statements from reliable sources, and they're apparently sufficiently difficult to find that (to my knowledge) they haven't been posted in this talk page yet. We go with source like the BBC and Reuters, not with allegations made by intelligence agencies.

We should absolutely describe the allegations made by US intelligence agencies, and the reformulated first paragraph does that. Reliable sources have reported heavily on those allegations, so we will, of course, describe them in this article. That's very different from taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact, which is something we're not going to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you wrote "large majority". You must have missed my explanation of the flaws in your thinking. There are plenty of RS which don't use "alleged". Your search, which "includes" alleged just confirms your bias. Others have performed the same search "without" alleged and found plenty of RS. This just shows that the search, especially without a complete (that would be hundreds of references) analysis on a time line, really doesn't prove anything other than that we can find RS which use it and which don't use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I responded to your points here. The fact that a newspaper does not use the word "alleged" in a particular article does not mean that the newspaper does not treat "Russian interference" as an allegation. There are synonyms for "alleged," and there are plenty of ways of describing an allegation without endorsing it as true. Anyways, what I said above is that the large majority of reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, and based on our discussion of sources above, that's true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven’t seen anyone here taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact. Exaggerating what other editors have done does not convince. I’ll say it again, if you are attempting to convince other editors, you are using the wrong tact. This talk page is way too long, filled as it is, with the same repetition . Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: BullRangifer clearly said, in reply to my proposal, that we should take the claims of US intelligence agencies as fact. That is specifically what I was responding to. I assume you disagree strongly with BullRangifer on this - if you don't, please correct me.

Thank you for the note about my tact, but I'm proposing something concrete here. What do you think of the proposed wording of the first paragraph? I think the source discussion above settled the issue of whether "alleged" is a mainstream way of describing "Russian interference" (again, please correct me if you disagree), so I think we can move on to reimplementing the reformulated first paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You do not convince. I do not agree to the change for reasons stated over and over. This is a boring waste of time. Objective3000 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should just ask my two questions directly:

1. Do you agree with BullRangifer's statement that we should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts?
2. Do you agree that reliable sources often use "alleged" when describing "Russian interference," and that they generally treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, without endorsing it as fact?

I really don't know what would convince you, but I think I've shown what needs to be shown: that reliable sources generally frame "Russian interference" as an allegation. I've also said why I think the reformulated first paragraph is better than what we have now. If you don't agree, it would be more helpful if you'd say what it is you don't like about the reformulated first paragraph. "You do not convince" isn't productive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You've made your point. The community can't allow a talk page to be bludgeoned against consensus. We all need to accept reality when our views are not shared by the consensus of editors on a given issue. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say that we "should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts." I believe they are correct, just as you, as an advocate for the Russian denial that any of this ever happened and that Trump is pure as snow , think the U.S. intelligence community is wrong. (Okay, I guess Putin has a right to have someone defending his POV here, and God knows that Trump and Putin are not ignoring our proceedings or allowing this discussion to happen without actively seeking to influence the editing process. C'est la vie.)

What we should NOT do is make the intelligence community state it as an "allegation", when they have "concluded" it happened. Don't misquote them. They are certain, even if you aren't. The current lead sentence is: "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." Don't change that to "alleged". That's dishonest. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, have you read the proposals? Thucydides' text does not connect "alleged" with the intelligence agencies' statements: he says that this article discusses the alleged role of Russia in the US presidential election, and that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks", that's pretty unambiguous. Alternately, my proposed lead in the RfC totally removes "alleged" and states, in their exact words, that said agencies are "highly confident" that Russia interfered in the election. Isn't that satisfactory? — JFG ^talk 03:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: The text I'm proposing is the one that you helped write. I don't think your comments here apply at all to the text that I proposed above. For example, the text states unambiguously that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks." I'd really appreciate if you gave it a second look. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired right now (jetlag), and this is a bit confusing,so maybe I'm conflating things. Somewhere on this page is a discussion to rename the article to some kind of "alleged" whatever. I think that's wrong, but I suspect that both of you support that idea, even though multiple intelligence agencies (USA and foreign), plus multiple competing cybersecurity companies, all conclude that the Russians did interfere in the election. That's factual, and there are plenty of RS which say it. That's the view which should get the most weight, and the title should reflect it.

I have made this comparison before, because I see what's happening here as similar to what has happened with the subject of climate change/global warming. The scientific consensus among 97% of published real climate scientists says that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, but there are multiple non-climate scientists and many amateurs who say it's not true. So in people's minds they see the 97% as ONE (as here they count the 17 US intelligence agencies as one), and the long list of people in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as a whole lot of people (because they are named and can be counted) against that ONE. They think the deniers have the weightier argument. Fortunately the Wikipedia community gave the climate scientists the weight they deserve. Unfortunately, here I see the opposite happening. The amateur deniers get to push their POV and get more weight than the real experts when it comes to naming the article. They want the title to enshrine the doubt. I see that as problematic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW neither Thucydides411 nor I are suggesting to change the title. We do agree with Adlerschloß and others that the article is biased towards the "official" POV, especially the lead section, and there are two proposals being floated to make it more neutral: this section and the open RfC. — JFG ^talk 05:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is being misframed as an either/or. As noted elsewhere, the fact that the intelligence agencies have concluded something does not mean that it ceases to be an allegation in the wider sense. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and the CIA etc do not act as the sole adjudicators of fact. The comparison with climate change is a little off-beam. The agencies are not a wide range of disinterested parties relying on the objective scientific method to look at hard data, but partisan players, from a narrow and specific sector, who are in the business of making often subjective assessments about actions and motive etc. With a history not only of getting things wrong but of deliberate misinformation. There is widespread scepticism IRL, at least among those not too heavily invested in blaming Russia for everything that went wrong for Clinton and right for Trump, about their claims on this point. The page should reflect that, not privilege the IC conclusions, let alone take them as read or as the last word N-HH talk/edits 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

But we're not relying on them alone. The strongest evidence comes from competing cybersecurity companies whose individual interests would be best served by not agreeing. Instead CrowdStrike, Fidelis, Mandiant, SecureWorks and ThreatConnect agree that Russia was behind the hacks. They are essentially looking at the DNA left under the fingernails of those attacked. It's strong evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Have you had a chance to look again at the paragraph I'm suggesting above? It's the same paragraph that you were involved in formulating, and that you previously expressed support for. I think it pretty clearly states the position of US intelligence, which seems to me to be your main concern. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I haven't, and I've lost any desire to do much more here. It's fruitless and a waste of time. Nothing I say will make any difference. There are far too many threads rehashing the same issues. It's just too complicated. I'm not removing this from my watchlist, but I feel it's hopeless here. RS have documented what experts say, but when those experts are not given the weight they deserve, there isn't much point in continuing. Just retitle the article Rebuttal of the unfair charges that Vladimir Putin would ever have any desire to destabilize western democracies, and then sign it, since that's the opinion of a number of editors here. This was obviously the doing of some 15 year old kid, just to mess with us. It's not at all notable. Nothing happened. There's nothing to see here folks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I admit that editing here is frustrating, but I think you have the completely wrong idea about what I'm proposing here. It's a fairly limited change to the article, and one that you previously wrote you thought was an improvement. But yes, it is frustrating to edit here, and the environment is far from collegial! -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This version is inferior to both the current version and the amended version proposed by JFC above. The first sentence (basically "Interference refers to interference") is just poor writing because it is redundant. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Avoid_these_common_mistakes ("If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy."). Neutrality^talk 14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: No, the proposed first paragraph does not way "Interference refers to interference." It says, "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 proposed first paragraph gives a concise description of the subject of the article, and properly refers to it as an allegation. It's vastly superior to the current first paragraph, which picks one random aspect of the subject to put in the first sentence, and doesn't give any background to the subject. The background is the publication of emails from the DNC and Podesta, which US intellgience alleges were given to Wikileaks by Russia through intermediaries. Any decent first paragraph would mention that. Instead, we have a jumbled lede that includes random elements of the subject, in a random order, and which gives far too much weight to the views of the spy agencies of one particular country. A lot of editors here seem not to be able to distinguish the difference between reliable sources and US intelligence any more, which is one of the reasons the lede is such a garbled mess. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus for any revision. Please do not disparage other editors. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have high confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow and that the first sentence is unacceptable and would never fly in a formal RfC. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Evolved lead text

Since the opening of this RfC, the proposed lead has evolved following remarks by MrX, Humanengr and Gouncbeatduke in a consensus effort, thanks. Could those editors who have not yet commented in the Survey section please take a fresh look and voice their opinion? @Adlerschloß, BullRangifer, ConservativeTrumpism, Darouet, DHeyward, EvergreenFir, Factchecker atyourservice, FallingGravity, Geogene, Guccisamsclub, Isaidnoway, James J. Lambden, Jytdog, K.e.coffman, Markbassett, MelanieN, My very best wishes, N-HH, Neutrality, Objective3000, Slatersteven, Softlavender, Space4Time3Continuum2x, SPECIFICO, SusanLesch, The Four Deuces, Thucydides411, and Volunteer Marek: + any others I forgot or passers-by, you're all welcome. — JFG ^talk 12:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest JFG, I've read through the long thread above and it's unclear to me where we stand. Regarding your proposal at the very top, and considering N-HH's comment on the nature of intelligence organizations, I'd propose only to attribute the statement of confidence:

The United States Intelligence Community has stated it is "highly confident" that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Other issues can be addressed separately from this thread in my view. -Darouet (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thanks for your comment. The wording of the lead sentence was developed by compromise between very opposed positions of MrX, Geogene and Humanengr. Personally I would be fine with your variant "has stated it is highly confident" instead of "has concluded with high confidence" but we'd need those other editors to agree as well. Apart from this first sentence, do you think the rest of the proposed text is an improvement compared to the current lead? — JFG ^talk 06:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes, generally I support other aspects of your revision. I had done a bunch of legwork earlier on this topic - reviewing editorial policies about how this topic is presented in the media - but just haven't had the time to come back here, with real life work (teaching, research). I apologize for that, and hope to be more involved at some point. -Darouet (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem. There is no deadline, except you may want to chime in within the nominal 30 days of the RfC period. — JFG ^talk 15:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we would need consensus among all the editors who are active on this page or who come to this page to discuss. We can't make progress by using the consent of a few editors as if it were the consensus of the larger group here. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The RfC puts a comprehensive text forward and specifically asks editors to suggest changes which could gain their support, as part of a consensus-building effort. You are obviously free to oppose, and other editors are free to support the outcome of this collective work towards article improvement. — JFG ^talk 15:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG - Thucydides411 is correct that alleged is the more prominent sources and majority of all sources. Google count for '"russian interference" us elections' is 1,250,000 with alleged vs 721,000 without. The with list firstpage is aol, cnbc, bbc, foxnews, nbc, and dni.gov; the without list firstpage is indivisibleguide, talkingpoints, resistencemanual, usnews, euractiv, and cbc. Also, those top 8 'with' all seem factual reporting, while the 'without' snippets seem only 2 are factual reporting (resistencemanual and euractiv) and the rest opinionating (cbc opinionating there will never be a smoking gun for this). Going several more pages in you do see some flakes in the 'with' and a few bigger names in the 'without', but it looks like 'alleged' retains a clear quality of RS and quantity lead.

Otherwise, I'll agree the RFC process looks a bit broken/confused by now, and largely rejecting the text as proposed -- 'prior version was better' crowd plus the 'only part A' crowd seem a majority. It might be better to tackle it para by para or individual points to avoid overwhelming size because 'alleged' goes on a bit. Concerns I can see with the top text here is is that a couple of the cites I tried are funky, and that the narrative is rather skipping about (2017, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2017, 2016..) and not a linked or overall picture -- even parts of the same para may be a puzzle. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Thanks for your comments. The discussion about using the word "alleged" has wasted enough editor time and we will never get consensus on it one way or the other. This perennial conundrum can be solved elegantly with the proper attribution of the "Russia interfered" statement to the intelligence community, as implemented in the proposed text. We don't need to choose between "A did B" or "A allegedly did B" when we simply write "C said that A did B".

For the rest of the lead, I agree that it does skip back and forth in dates, because it is rather arranged by themes: US intelligence statements (Russia meddled in the US presidential election), how Russia interfered (email hacks and online propaganda), political investigations, and finally diplomatic retaliation. I'm open to re-arranging the narrative in chronological order, but I think we should first de-clutter the current lead. Do you think the proposed text in an overall improvement compared to the current version? Do you have specific suggestions for further improvement? — JFG ^talk 06:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Podobnyy/Page, Prince, Hayden, etc.

I've partially, but not fully, restored some content deleted by JFG (with the edit summary "Remove a bunch of off-topic asides and redundant opinions"), although I have edited the text of some to be clearer and more precise. I find much of the material at issue to be very much on topic and not redundant. Going in order:

• (1) Page's past contacts with Viktor Podobnyy before becoming a Trump advisor - although this incident took place in 2013, it's relevant because, as the sources reflect, Page was dumped from the team after the FBI investigation into the Podobnyy contacts came to light, and because the sources more generally cover it in the context of the 2016-present investigation into 2016 election interference. I added text to make clear that although the FBI interviewed Page in that case, he was never accused of wrongdoing, which I think we must mention. The relevant, full-length citations are:
  • Adam Goldman, Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump, New York Times (April 4, 2017).
  • Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with Russian spy in 2013, Associated Press (April 3, 2017).

• (2) Regarding Trump/CIA rupture - deletion of the word "unprecedented." - I can't understand the rationale for this deletion at all. The sources directly describe the rupture as being unprecedented. This is valuable historical information because it signals to readers how unusual it was. The citations reflect that:
  • New Yorker ("Never before has a President or President-elect spoken so dismissively of the C.I.A.")
  • ABC News ("an unprecedented public display of acrimony")
  • WSJ ("an extraordinary rupture").

• (3) Erik Prince section - this was deleted completely. I don't get this deletion as well. Although the Prince/Seychelles meeting occurred after the election, it's clearly related to the page topic. See Washington Post cite ("U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump."). We do appropriately mention that Prince had no formal appointment on the transition team, but that alone does not make the material irrelevant. If there is something we can do to shorten the text without omitting important information, or to add text that reflects any kind of doubt on the significance of the meeting, then of course I'm open to that, but wholesale deletion doesn't seem to be called for here.

• (4) Hayden sentence - I've restored a shortened version of the Hayden op-ed. Hayden is a very influential figure (he is more important than McMullin, who gets two sentences), the weight (literally one sentence) is proper, and it's clearly relevant here. Neutrality^talk 22:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed rationale and partial revert with precise changes, that's refreshing. Here's my take on your remarks:

1. The Page anecdote of 2013 is over-extended but you explained it more clearly than the version I had trimmed, so I'm fine keeping it this way; some WP readers may appreciate spy novels…
2. I had removed both qualifiers "immediate and unprecedented" which are non-neutral; keeping "unprecedented" is fine, per sources.
3. This is a complete side story, entirely based on one source which quotes unnamed officials and remains prudent about the connection and the motives: "an apparent effort to establish a back-channel", "the full agenda remains unclear", "Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.", "alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump". Both the White House and Prince strongly denied the innuendo: "“We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition,” said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. A Prince spokesman said in a statement: “Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication. The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump." Therefore, I still think this entire section should be deleted. Or at least radically trimmed and balanced with denials.
4. Fine with the shortened Hayden citation. — JFG ^talk 23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad we can narrow the range of items under dispute. I don't think that a lack of clarity necessarily demands deletion; given the subject matter, a lot of this is shrouded in mystery. I understand that you would like to see the Prince section go altogether, but what do you have in mind for a "radically trimmed and balanced with denials" alternative? If you have some suggestion, maybe we can agree on a version we can all live with? Neutrality^talk 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We probably could agree on a trimmed version, although I still think this section should be entirely removed as a WP:BLPVIO. Let's first wait for comments on the BLP aspects, at WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince. — JFG ^talk 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I made changes on the entry for Prince.[15] It is perfectly fine to report allegations even if false provided they have received adequate attention. See for example "Freddie Starr ate my hamster." But we must always explain whether they are facts or allegations and if so whether they are disputed. Furthermore, in this case it is important to explain the supposed reason for the alleged meeting - to get Russian assistance on Iran. Otherwise the implication is that it was part of the alleged Russian conspiracy to overthrow the Republic. TFD (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD, where did the idea that the meeting's purpose was "to get Russian assistance on Iran" come from? Maybe I'll have to read the source again. I just don't recall it now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD - Half of your edit introduced content directly at odds with the source. There is no dispute that the meeting took place (Prince through his spokesman acknowledged that it took place, but said "The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump"), so the addition "allegedly took place" and "allegations" of a meeting is wrong). The statement "The Trump administration denies the meeting took place" is also incorrect (Spicer said "We are not aware of any meeting"—which is very different from an outright denial). Best, Neutrality^talk 20:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer, the article says, "Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions."[16] I now see that the article did not question whether the meeting took place. However, it is incorrect to imply that it's purpose was to subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known. TFD (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

GOD BLESS AMERICA!! But are you saying that WP should not report on the foes of America who may subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known? Battlestations! There's cleanup to be done on the Nixon, Jefferson Davis, & Alger Hiss. I'll take care of Tokyo Rose. You can work on the Rosenberg's. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend the "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. TFD (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

See also, the collected speeches of Ronald Reagan: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help..." SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

After a few days of abundant discussion of this issue on WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince, there is an even split between editors who consider this story a BLP violation and editors who don't. Therefore we should err on the side of caution and remove the material until such time that it gets corroborated by independent reporting or new facts. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There's not an "even split". There are 8 for retain, and 4 to 5 remove. That's a clear supermajority to retain. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an exact even split of 7 to 7 at the BLPN discussion; I have carefully listed all editors who commented there. But of course you reverted the contents claiming no consensus… Well we can say there's no consensus to remove the story and we can say there's no consensus to retain it, so how do you propose we solve this? Per BLP policy we must err on the side of caution, so "no consensus to keep" should trump "no consensus to remove" in this case (pardon my pun). — JFG ^talk 11:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, you've miscounted; it's 8 to 4 or 5. If you'd like me to list each editor, I can. There is zero consensus that mentioning the cited Erik Prince activity is a BLP violation. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This contention there's a problem with RS content is a nonsense attack that has been decisively rejected at BLPN, where it made its unfortunate appearance as an ex-post defense of a 1RR DS violation. And P.S. we don't count votes around here, especially by involved or self-interested parties. Anyway, the aye's are above the no's. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: and friends: it's interesting how you vehemently called upon BLPVIO to suppress contents you didn't like, and now you vehemently run the exact counter-argument to keep contents you like. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP/N outcome

The extensive discussion at BLP/N resulted in consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok. Consequently, here's my suggestion, shortening the current section:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian envoy in the Seychelles, allegedly to "establish a back-channel line of communication" between Trump and Putin. The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates in order to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. Prince is the brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and was a major donor to Trump's election campaign. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."

Extended content
References

It's still longer than "a line or two" in order to fairly represent the subject matter. Support, Oppose, Amend? — JFG ^talk 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody commented in 6 days, so I have applied the proposal. Qui tacet consentire videtur. — JFG ^talk 20:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: You just reverted this change, saying "There was no consensus to short this at all." Perhaps you had not seen this talk page section and the BLP/N discussion which shows consensus to shorten? Looking forward to your comments. — JFG ^talk 22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no consensus anywhere for your edit, which alters the meaning of the text and is less faithful to the cited source. Your "silence procedure" link has nothing to do with WP editing policy. In general, the more relevant issue is WP:BLUDGEON. Folks get worn out repeating the same policy-based arguments and so they retreat from being asked over and over to justify their clearly stated viewpoint. Maybe we need a "safe word". SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No I did not see this discussion in which you incorrectly claim that there was a "consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok". You removed the corroboration by two intelligence official but you left in the shallow denial from the white house. I see no justification for shortening the material. - MrX 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Please read final comments by Dumuzid, Thucydides411 and Masem at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive254#Erik Prince, a couple hours after your last contribution to that discussion. You did not object further before the thread was archived, so I took it as silent assent. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MrX here. There was no closure in the BLP/N discussion and I don't see a consensus to shorten there. Even if it should be shortened as a matter of style or weight (not BLP), the shortened form that you propose is (as MrX and SPECIFICO write), less faithful to the cited source and emphasizes the wrong things. Like MrX said, I can see no justification for leaving in the White House's cursory denial but taking out the corroboration from intelligence officials. Neutrality^talk 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I'd be happy to consider an alternative proposal taking your concerns into account. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How is a bilateral negotiation consistent with your view that there was a community consensus at BLPN? Wouldn't you need to reopen the whole thread if in fact there had been consensus there? Not clear what process you are proposing. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The process looks clear to me, but I'm happy to recap what happened:

1. Once upon a time, a new section on Erik Prince was created in the article.
2. I deleted it among a bunch of other things which looked off-topic or newsy.
3. Neutrality restored parts of my edit, improved the contents and started a discussion
4. I answered and found consensus with him on all disputed points except the Erik Prince part, which I considered a BLP violation
5. I opened a discussion at BLP/N.
6. Meanwhile, several editors continued tweaking the text here.
7. The BLP/N discussion demonstrated a sharp divide among editors considering this section to be a BLPVIO and others who didn't
8. On 19 April, three editors from opposing views at BLP/N reached a consensus to mention the affair briefly, with "two lines, including the denials". Nobody commented further.
9. Two weeks later (4 May), I posted a text proposal here to implement this outcome, soliciting comments.
10. After 6 days with no comments, I applied the proposed text.
11. MrX reverted, and we are discussing. (That's healthy!)
12. I have invited editors to amend my proposed summary, so that we collectively reach an acceptable version for everyone involved.
13. I don't think we should re-litigate the BLPVIO issue, but if we fail to agree here, I suppose we could request a formal closure of the BLP/N discussion.

Voilà, à vous la parole! — JFG ^talk 01:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The fact is you edit-warred your preferred version into the article, falsely claiming consensus in your edit summary, and a torrent of opposition ensued. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So you consider that applying the WP:BRD process in collegiality with opposing editors as a form of edit warring? Invoking the outcome of a bona fide WP:BLPN discussion is "false consensus"? You repeatedly tried to focus the BLPN discussion on a bogus DS claim against me, and you got sanctioned for that. Please address contents soberly instead. — JFG ^talk 07:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

14. Ne vous Trumpez pas!- MrX 02:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Good one. — JFG ^talk 07:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Mr. X here This seems well sourced and relevant to the article. Did you post something on this page's talk page concerning the discussion at BLP/N? Other editors should have been able to talk part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly this is well-sourced, and I preserved the source, I just summarized the core assertions made in the source. I did post on this talk page when opening the BLP/N discussion.[17] Many editors participated in that discussion. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So your only notification to editors on this page was one message given as a response to an editor mid-thread and telling that editor to wait. Seems to be the conversation was going against you here and you were engaging in Wikipedia:FORUMSHOPCasprings (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: You did say in the original discussion that you would possibly approve a trimmed version. Would you be satisfied with my paragraph above summarizing the Washington Post , followed by the last paragraph in the current prose, summarizing the NBC News report about what intelligence officials added? Same question to MrX. — JFG ^talk 08:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I still think that lacks important detail. We should stay close to the main source. Here is my proposed version:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that in January, Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met with an unidentified Russian associate of Vladimir Putin, in the Seychelles. According to U.S., European, and Arab officials, the meeting was arranged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to establish a back-channel link between Trump and Putin. The UAE and Trump's associates reportedly tried to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. The FBI is investigating the Seychelles meeting which took place after previous meetings in New York between Trump's associates and officials from Russia and the Emirates, at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community. Prince was a major contributor to Trump's election campaign, and appears to have close ties to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. The Trump administration denied knowledge of the meeting and said that Prince was not involved in the Trump campaign.

Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.

Extended content
References

I tweaked the wording and arrangement of a couple of sentences. I removed DeVos who is not relevant in any of this.- MrX 11:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

First thoughts:

• Your version asserts as a fact that the FBI is investigating the meeting when actually the FBI declined to comment.
• When I rewrote the material, I assessed weight of many claims against the Washington Post piece and ten additional sources. If I recall correctly, DeVos was mentioned in all of them.

I think I would be ready to scrap "The FBI, however, refused to comment.", which I added, but not DeVos. Politrukki (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post reports "U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump." No objection to editing the material so that it more closely aligns with the source, but there's no value in stating that the FBI didn't comment. I don't object to adding DeVos back in if other sources point that out.- MrX 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX's version looks good to me. It follows the sources, is appropriately concise but complete, and fair. Neutrality^talk 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Still a bit too long on details. Here's a middle-ground variant:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian associate of Putin in the Seychelles. The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates to establish a back channel between Trump and Putin and to convince Russia to distance itself from Iran. U.S. officials said the FBI was investigating the meeting as part of their inquiry into election interference and Trump–Russia relations. Prince was a major donor to Trump's election campaign and has been linked to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."

Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.

Extended content
References

Good enough? — JFG ^talk 23:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There appears now to be consensus for MrX's version. The alternative directly above is weaseled and is less clear. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Shorter version looks less weaseled to me. Prior version is still long on content-free prose such as "at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community". Yeah, that's something we already say a dozen times in this article… — JFG ^talk 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings, MrX, Neutrality, and Politrukki: Any comments on the two latest rounds of proposals by MrX and yours truly? — JFG ^talk 19:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Jeffrey Carr and IISS

Should information from Jeffrey Carr that conflicts with the CrowdStrike report and US government intelligence assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC (as detailed in the Miami Herald [18], Harper's [19], and Fortune [20]) be included in this article's section on "Cybersecurity analysis", and should information from the International Institute for Strategic Studies corroborating on CrowdStrike's credibility problems (described to Voice of America: [21]) be included as well? Adlerschloß (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Conditional support - I would support a shorter version of this, without direct quotes, provided that someone can find at least one or two solid additional sources. The Miami Herald and VOA are reliable, but I'm concerned about the story being promoted in Breitbart, The Daily Mail, fringe blogs, and RT. Carr seems to dismiss CrowdStrike's findings on rather flimsy reasoning, in my opinion. Regardless, his expert view should be represented once it passes WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Based on the two additional sources presented (Harpers and Forbes), I now believe that a couple of sentences discussing Carr's criticism of CrowdStrike's findings should be included per WP:NPOV. Softlavender, did you really just reject a reputable source because of it's geographic proximity to Trump's other White House?- MrX 15:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose It is (as I say below) not exactly accurate as to what the sources say. It needs rewording, not just shortening. There is also as issue with Undue, CrowdStrike are not the only IT security firm to claim Russian interference, so it rejects just one piece of evidence, the article is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: My proposed shorter text below addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 07:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose use of Voice of America material, since that is simply Trump's mouthpiece. Also Oppose use of Miami Herald as a source, as that regional newspaper is way too close to Trump's Mar-a-Lago. If there is a major reliable unbiased national newspaper that says the same thing, then I would be open to reviewing that. Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

What a bizarre rationale to exclude mainstream sources! Who said VOA is "Trump's mouthpiece"? If the Miami Herald is too close to Mar-a-Lago for comfort, then would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower?? Where does this end??? This argument makes no sense at all, sorry. Focus on the contents rather than the messenger. — JFG ^talk 15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower??" No, because New Yorkers hate Trump. That's why he goes to Mar-a-Lago every weekend. Plus the New York Times is a highly respected national and international newspaper, and is the newspaper of record for the U.S. Softlavender (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: the Miami Herald endorsed Clinton for President [22], brag that they don't indulge in "alternative facts" [23], and the VoA has numerous articles critical of the Administration: [24][25][26]. What is your take on this? -Darouet (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support These are reliable sources and coverage in various sources establishes weight. I agree that coverage in unreliable sources does not establish weight, but that is a red herring since none have been presented. TFD (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Generally Oppose The problems with the text are manyfold. First, there’s too much speculation. Carr admits he doesn’t have all the evidence known to the agencies that have reported Russian influence in the election. He criticizes one of the sources based on a belief that they were incorrect in another case, while ignoring other sources. He argues that a report does not prove a case; but that report cannot include classified info. He was not a part of any of the deliberations behind the report. He is a private consultant with no direct connection. I’m also bothered by the statement growing doubt in the computer security industry. He does not speak for the industry and provides scant evidence for such a general statement. Pronouncements like this reflect poorly on his testimony. I also am troubled by Carr’s statements that he knows what investigations the FBI did and did not perform. I’m also bothered by the attack on CrowdStrike in a different case. CrowdStrike and Carr may be competitors and Carr has made strong statements about CrowdStrike in the past. (Apparently he detests McAfee whose execs funded CrowdStrike [27].) As an aside, Carr’s comments in Harpers are sarcastic in nature and comments elsewhere are dismissive. It just sounds like someone on the outside upset he isn’t on the inside. I’m not casting any aspersions, it just doesn’t sound like a good source. BTW, I think he is no longer associated with Taia Global Inc. Possibly a one or two sentence mention with a better source is acceptable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: My proposed shorter text below addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Jeffrey Carr is barely notable, and this opinion column by the former TV columnist of a lesser-tier newspaper doesn't elevate JC's expertise to anything near significant enough to publish in Wikipedia. And how reliable is the source when the columnist refers to Carr as being CEO of this defunct wannabe cyberstartup that apparently raised a total of $80,000 venture capital funding before its demise? Talk is cheap, but WP is not. Lesser opinion columnists will smile-and-dial until they get some fodder for an op-ed, but consider the source. And the biases that (however unfortunately) select against the best expert comment appearing in the least expert publications. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:NPOV, but agree with MrX that a couple of sentences is sufficient. Other sources that quote Carr include: Associated Press, PBS Newshour, McClatchy and Arstechnica, not in depth coverage from these particular sources mentioned, but still enough to indicate that Carr's opinion was given some weight, and with the additional sources listed above I believe that a couple of sentences is warranted per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Prior to this (in 2014 and 2015), Carr's opinion has also been featured in Newsweek and CNN. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Carr was not the only one pointing out that the incriminated hacking tools were freely available to anybody, and not exclusive to people connected to Russian intelligence services; a bunch of cybersecurity experts have cast legitimate doubt on the inferences attributing the DNC hacks to Russian sources, e.g. John McAfee and Kevin Poulsen come to mind. However I think we can do with shorter prose, and we don't need to repeat Carr's statements about CrowdStrike's reputation. Here's proposed text with other sources: — JFG ^talk 16:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Cybersecurity analyst Jeffrey Carr stated that CrowdStrike's inferences pointing at the Russian intelligence services were baseless because the incriminated X-Agent tool was freely available for anyone to download. Wordfence and Errata Security noted that the PHP malware referenced in the JAR was an out-of-date version "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world."

Extended content
References

Um, gee. This RfC is about Carr. Let's try to stay focused here. RfC should be closed, since nobody really seems to think Carr is a notable cyberexpert security guy. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose undue weight, marginal notability of Carr, and doubtful relevance of Ukrainian howitzers to DNC hacking. Geogene (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Carr has been cited by a number of newspapers, as well as the wire agency AP ([28]). In connection with another cybersecurity story, he's recently been cited by the New York Times as well ([29]), so he's clearly regarded as an expert commentator by at least several newspapers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per TFD. Anyone who doubts he's notable should check out his bio and mentions here, here (there are more) and of course the Miami Herald. He is on of the more notable and knowledgeable voices on the issue. Keep in mind however that the malware fingerprint was not the only evidence found. So Carr can cast doubt on some of Crowdstrike's findings, but the he never said that the evidence was nonexistent, only that it is less conclusive than some think. Editors who are afraid that readers might misinterpret the proposed text as saying that no evidence exists, should actually take a moment to learn something topic and summarize the existing evidence for the readers — instead of trying to keep notable minority view points out. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here is text under discussion. It tells, among other things, that CrowdStrike itself was found by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2017 to have used data erroneously to falsely accuse Russia of being responsible for hacking a Ukrainian military artillery app. (ref). First of all, that is irrelevant to the subject of this page. Second, after reading the source, it appears that a report by CrowdStrike (on a different subject!) was disputed and needed some corrections, but was not actually wrong. This suggestion looks like a poisoning the well. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: My proposed shorter text addresses your objections, nothing to do with Ukraine indeed, and no undue criticism of CrowdStrike; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 05:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed per several editors above. Yes, per MVBW, this is just a thinly veiled attempt at a POV poisoning the well. Yes, per Geogene, the person is not really notable. On the other hand if this can be properly worded - perhaps the way that Guccisamsclub suggest with the "less conclusive" conclusion actually in the text then maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Minor include - google is showing me reports about these on VOA, PBS, Politifact, Harpers, Wired, Ars Technica, Slate, Mother Jones, Daily Mail, News Day, .... so has some mainstream presence. But the quantity of mentions is much smaller and the ones I looked at had him as a brief bit, more of a side remark about a dissenting voice in a larger article. So I'd say shoot for a minor include is OK, but kind of optional and not to be done if there is something else giving doubts with larger prominence. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Do you have links that cite Mr. Carr recently discussing the Russian intervention on all those publications or sites? That would be surprising. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Yes, as I recall basically Google turned them up from '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking', and then I paged thru and noted the URLs of places that seemed notable, and read the google snippet and clicked thru to read detail sometimes. (If you want a specific one then make it '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking VOA' or whatever.) Again, those seemed mostly to give him just a brief mention -- but that he is noted by them seemed some WP:WEIGHT. Markbassett (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support including Carr's claims given his reputation and coverage of the claim (Miami Herald, Fortune and particularly Harper's.) Wait for additional sourcing on International Institute for Strategic Studies report – VOA is borderline. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't even mentioned in our article on Carr. If this fringey opinion is mentioned at all in WP it should be there, not here. See WP:ONEWAY. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• No -- excessive intricate detail; there's already too much of it in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: What the article really needs is balance. While the article should be substantially shortened (it's become a coatrack for everything Russia-related in US politics), we shouldn't be excluding only material which is critical of the allegations made by US intelligence agencies. The significant criticism of US intelligence reports should be noted in the article. The article is chock-full of lengthy quotes from US intelligence, and has a separate section for nearly every single allegation that some person is connected to Russia. Until that bloat is addressed, I don't think we should be paring down the underrepresented dissenting viewpoints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would support JFG's text proposal as well-sourced and one of a number of other critical commentaries that should likely appear in the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This article already gives WP:UNDUE weight to fringe opinions, this would make it worse. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - not really notable and gives undue weight against the bulk of the relaible sources on the matter. Stickee (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• SUPPORT if it's weighted appropriately with other sources. I'm not persuaded that the Miami Herald isn't sufficiently a reliable source for this information, and somewhat surprised that came up as an issue. Voice of America is definitely a WP:RS. If we use Crowdstrike as a source to document facts in this article, their credibility is an issue. It's really important for our readers to get a balanced presentation of facts on contentious issues. It deserves brief mention with reliable sources cited so readers can read the stuff that doesn't fit in a summary weighted with the other information. loupgarous (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• If we have one bunch of "industry outsiders" opinions I see no reason why we should not have another.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC):However your text, I think, does not reflect very well what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This RfC deals with whether to include these sources, not my exact text. We can discuss text after the RfC. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks more like speculation than information. And, I see no reason to include such from any bunch of industry outsiders. Objective3000 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Carr was not really "speculating" about anything at all but describing problems with CrowdStrike's report and how it does not amount to proof. And we already include citations from several "industry outsiders" expressing degrees of agreement with the CrowdStrike report. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000, indeed it is opinion not fact. But so is the entire story. And weight requires us to report opinions. TFD (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And this article is not about Crowdsrike.Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Adlerschloß, you need to indicate in your OP what "information from Carr" you are talking about, who "Carr" is, what "CrowdStrike report" you are talking about, and what "information from IISS" you are talking about. Otherwise, this RfC is completely incomprehenible and invalid. Softlavender (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding additional reliable sources requested by MrX, Carr's viewpoints were also discussed in Harper's [30] and Fortune [31]. These discuss more than just the CrowdStrike report but would be appropriate to include in the same section (Cybersecurity analysis). Adlerschloß (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Softlavender's remarks alleging the Miami Herald to be unreliable for reasons of geography, I will point out that Mar-a-Lago is 90 miles away from Miami, and that the Miami Herald endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in the 2016 election: [32] Adlerschloß (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Trump won the election and is in power, and that regional newspaper is his regional newspaper. Carr lives in Seattle. The fact that only the Miami Herald would interview him is telling, as is the fact that he is the founder of a failed cybersecurity startup, and the fact that he only posts on Medium (a blogsite) and LinkedIn. Softlavender (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: With all due respect, do you realize that your inferences about Jeffrey Carr and the Miami Herald sound like a conspiracy theory? — JFG ^talk 15:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is getting a bit bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

MMfA has mentioned the coverage.[33] I note that no other papers have picked up the story from the Miami Herald, so we need to be sure that we be clear the story has had limited mainstream coverage, but was widely reported in right-wing sources, the Daily Mail and RT. TFD (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's disruptive to jump from one bad edit to a month-long RfC struggling to shoehorn Carr back into the article. It's already well-established consensus on this talk page that JC is not RS this stuff. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We are not using Carr as a source, we are using the Miami Herald. Note that reliability relates to facts, while the issue is whether to include his opinion, which is an issue of weight alone. Whether or not his opinion should be mentioned is decision of reliable secondary sources, such as the Miami Herald. TFD (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Right. As I stated above his opinion is insignificant as is the Miami columnist's. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • The Miami Herald opinion columnist's references to Carr's bio read like out-of-date material from Carr's LinkedIn page. "International cybersecurity expert" etc. Entrepreneur etc. Grey Goose etc. All defunct. From the best available information, JC appears to be a retiree who may be available to answer the phone for a journalist but is hardly in the loop these days. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The Miami Herald article referenced is not a column, but a news article appearing in their national section. And as other references in above discussion and survey indicate, Carr's analysis on this subject is considered noteworthy by many reliable sources. Adlerschloß (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Of others have well have said thus, why not make it more general, and not have one man named as an authoritative source?Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding remarks by Myverybestwishes accusing me of bad faith edits -- it is potentially valid to argue that the erroneous CrowdStrike report on Ukraine is irrelevant to this specific article (although I disagree, as VOA in two separate articles linked these errors to CrowdStrike's narrative on election interference), but you are not accurate in flatly stating that CrowdStrike's report "wasn't wrong" in some objective sense. CrowdStrike retracted their allegations of combat losses caused by a military artillery app hack (their false reading of IISS data was the premise behind their overall narrative) while not retracting their larger claim that a hack occurred (although per their corrections it would seem they argue a hack occurred that was meaningless or had no tangible effect); but the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense argues that neither the combat losses nor the hack occurred at all, see: [34] Adlerschloß (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I do believe you misinterpreted these sources, possibly because you did not read them carefully. Here is your link, and here is "retraction" by CrowdStrike your source refers to. This "retraction" tells, According to an update ... the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations and This previously unseen variant of X-Agent represents FANCY BEAR’s expansion in mobile malware ... reveals one more component of the broad spectrum approach to cyber operations taken by Russia-based actors in the war in Ukraine. It further tells (as relates to the subject of this page): The collection of such tactical artillery force positioning intelligence by FANCY BEAR further supports CrowdStrike’s previous assessments that FANCY BEAR is likely affiliated with the Russian military intelligence (GRU), and works closely with Russian military forces operating in Eastern Ukraine and its border regions in Russia. This is not retraction, as also clear from reading your link/source completely, instead of indiscriminately citing only the first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My Very Best Wishes mentions that the IISS criticizes CrowdStrike for another analysis supposedly unrelated to the current one and therefore we cannot mention it. But it is a reasonable assumption that if a CrowdStrike has been wrong in the past they are less likely to be right now. Not something we can say, but a conclusion in a reliable source that we can report. Unless one subscribes to the gambler's fallacy. TFD (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Also a tiny minority viewpoint, far out of line with coverage in the bulk of sources. I don't see how the alleged hacking in Ukraine relates to the DNC hacks, and I also don't see how CrowdStrike's choice of sources for Ukrainian battlefield casualty rates are related to its competency (or lack of it) in regards to cybersecurity. As far as I know, they aren't in the kind of business that Stratfor or Jane's Defence Weekly are in. So all of this seems like a tremendous stretch on both counts. Geogene (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:You don't believe in mean reversion? Tell that to the hedge fund statisticians. One man's fish is another man's fallacy. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you were joking about mean reversion. Our article on that topic clearly defines it as "the assumption that a stock's price will tend to move to the average price over time". Mean reversion depends on sound inferences drawn from huge amounts of financial data. Crowdstrike's record of accuracy vs. inaccuracy is a very small data set compared to that. In evaluating the record of an intelligence analysis firm (or any other source or processor of intelligence) you have to rely on their record. I don't think that Crowdstrike's inaccuracies in one field are irrelevant to their overall reliability as a source of information, either. loupgarous (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly joking, just trying to point out how preposterous was the reference to "gambler's fallacy" in a content/sourcing discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Election vs elections?

The current title is Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Why the plural "s" on the end? Is there any evidence that the Russians tried to interfere with any other than the 2016 presidential election (singular)?

If not, the title should be changed to Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There was a brief thread about this but it wasn't conclusive: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 6#Which elections? — JFG ^talk 07:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

[35] discussion - MrX 10:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that's the article discussed earlier. I'll just copy my response from the previous thread:

Reading the sources quoted by Sagecandor at the time, there does not seem to be anything showing that Russia targeted the House races; they merely say that the leaked opposition research by Democrats was used by Republican candidates against them. Well, this would happen no matter what the source of information was; it's a tradition in US elections that campaigns collect every nasty bit about each other and throw mud until something sticks. I have yet to see a source explaining how Russia attempted to influence any election other than the presidential race.

Any other pointers to Russian interference in House and Senate races? — JFG ^talk 14:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

JFG, that seems to be a sound argument. I have yet to see any direct evidence that Russians made any serious effort to affect any other elections. The hacked material just happened to be used by whoever felt they could use it. Nothing new there. There is still no reason for the title to be about plural "elections".-- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you even try to do any research yourself?

• "Trump acknowledges Russian involvement in meddling in U.S. elections"
• "Russian hackers were likely surprised by blowback from cyberattacks on U.S. elections, analysts say"
• "Putin says claims that Russia interfered in US elections are 'lies'"
• "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections"
• "Reports by the FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security in December found that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 elections in an attempt to affect the outcome."
• "Burr's committee is currently investigating Russian interference into the U.S. elections and potential collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Putin allies in Russia."
• "U.N. AMBASSADOR NIKKI HALEY SAYS RUSSIA ‘CERTAINLY’ INVOLVED IN U.S. ELECTIONS"
• "Vladimir Putin has again denied Russian meddling in the US elections, blaming allegations that Moscow had sought to influence the vote on an internal political battle in the US."

- MrX 11:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if you wanted to materially affect the election for president and somehow avoid affecting other elections on the same day; I don’t think you could find a way.:) In any case, we should use whatever RS use, as Sir X has laid out above. Objective3000 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, MrX and Objective3000, do we mention this in this article? Was it significant or incidental? If this was a significant factor, then we need to cover it in its own section(s). Otherwise we are tacitly treating this like a "presidential election" only issue.

The content and title must be in sync. Right now they aren't. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MrX from your first source, the only time "elections" is used is in the title. The rest of the article refers specifically to "the election" eg the Presidential Election. Now we can argue that there were of course many "elections" that made up the Presidential Election, after all there were elections in counties all across the country, but I don't think that's what our article should do. I agree with User:BullRangifer's proposal. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

But the Russian interference dates back as far as 2015 -- so it's not just the general election for president. It's all of the primary elections in both parties in many states. EOM. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You say "the Russian interference dates back as far as 2015". Got sources? — JFG ^talk 03:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's one: The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

If we include the suspicious contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians, then multiple foreign intelligence agencies were already discovering and then monitoring such contacts in 2015. It was worrying enough that they warned the American intelligence agencies, but they were slow to react. So what happened later had been in the works for some time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG affirmed the 2015 date above at 12:58, 24 April 2017. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure, that's a source saying EU intelligence agencies intercepted some communications between Russians and Trump people in late 2015. Even if that can be construed as collusion (which remains to be proven) it still only addresses interference in the presidential election, not any others. — JFG ^talk 05:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The content and title are in sync. The body of the article has sourced passages that refer to elections. For example, a CNN article says "President Barack Obama has ordered a full review into hacking aimed at influencing US elections going back to 2008, the White House said Friday." Yes, sources sometimes discuss the Presidential election, while some discuss the broader elections, and some discuss both. I think the article and title are appropriately comprehensive.- MrX 16:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's good there is a reference which mentions earlier dates. Now we need some evidence that actual interference was attempted and/or occurred, and then sections for such content. We just need some actual content about the matter, rather than vague allusions to the possibility. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I found this:

• Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking

References

Maybe there's more. We need to at least have a section dealing with this. Right now the article is nearly entirely about the presidential election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of source

(Restored from archive SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC))

@SPECIFICO: I'm afraid your revert citing "misrepresentation of source" was misguided, because it's the previous text which misrepresented the cited source. Just read the articles please: they are bashing the JAR report so hard it must be deader than the proverbial horse. — JFG ^talk 16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made an adjustment to Specifico's edit to better align copy with the source provided: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's cool, but cherry-picking the "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" bit still looks very undue compared to the meat of the article. I was surprised by the wide discrepancy between the virulent tone of the cited articles lambasting the JAR report and the mild apologetic tone of the Wikipedia sentences quoting them. — JFG ^talk 17:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this soooo many times. The subject of the article is the Russian interference, not the declassified reports. What they chose to declassify, whether they could have chosen a more complete public version, and why they chose the content that's in the JAR.. Who knows? Some RS have speculated that a more complete version would have compromised the several ongoing investigations relating to possible crimes and associations. WP will be able to adjust in due course, but these public reports and the pundits who get mentioned in comments thereon are of relatively minor significance to the subject. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

How about you answer my original point instead of making guesses about what is not in the reports? Fact is the article cited a credible source (Kevin Poulsen) who was extremely critical of the JAR report, calling it "worse than useless", and you cherry-picked one bit of this article that says the bad quality of this report encourages "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists". I correct this as a blatant misrepresentation of the source, and all you did is a knee-jerk revert, followed by deflection. — JFG ^talk 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I just undid your edit, cause I thought it removed so much of the text as to alter its meaning and misrepresent the cited source. So I didn't pick anything, just undid what appeared to me to be a worse version than the one you reverted. I do think it's important to remember that these reports are not the subject of the article. The Russian interference is the subject of the article. So it's like if we edit the article about Los Angeles, and somebody states that in their considered opinion, a book calling it the "City of Angles" is a worse than useless publication, we'd most likely conclude that bit was not central to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, so you will surely agree with me that whoever "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" may be, they are also not the subject of this article. I maintain that my inclusion of Poulsen's quote "worse than useless" is a good summary of the source material. — JFG ^talk 02:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you commanding me to agree with you? Chicken-fried nutballs. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Never would I dare command you! I am asking you whether you agree that "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" are not the subject of this article. — JFG ^talk 03:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: I'm questioning your revert which restores a version of the text that seriously misrepresents the source by cherry-picking a phrase. Have you read the source article in full? How much weight does it give to Trump conspiracies vs the report's flaws? Quotes: "U.S. officials shoot themselves in the foot", "At every level this report is a failure", "the report is a gumbo of earnest security advice mixed with random information", "Though the written report is confusing, it’s the raw data released along with it that truly exasperates security professionals.", "We had an extraordinary high amount of false positives on this dataset", "It turns out that some, perhaps most, of the watchlisted addresses have a decidedly weak connection to the Kremlin, if any.", "the DHS watchlist […] is useless to network administrators already fighting “alert fatigue”", "the government is now confusing everyone". Sorry, you can't honestly summarize this article by cherry-picking the expression "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists": this is not what the article is mainly talking about, by a long shot. — JFG ^talk 23:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not cherry-picking to present the central thesis of the source. To quote it in full: "Such was the case last week when the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a technical exposé of Russia’s hacking that industry experts are slamming as worse than useless—so jumbled that it potentially harms cybersecurity, so aimless that it muddies the clear public evidence that Russia hacked the Democratic Party to affect the election, and so wrong it enables the Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists trying to explain away that evidence." [36] If you want to add to it that also harms cybersecurity, that's OK. Not okay with leaving out the genuine concern that ineptitude of the report encourages pro-Trump conspiracy theories, which is prominent in the first paragraph. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is not the "central thesis of the source". It's a couple words thrown in the middle of the article to convey an anti-Trump message. The writer is clearly exasperated that the intelligence report cannot make a strong case against Trump, and he spends 90% of his words lambasting the report's lack of professionalism and reliance on innuendo instead of displaying solid evidence. Nowhere in the article do I see any discussion of who are those "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" and what kind of theories they may be peddling. Nowhere! So if we're going to use this source, we cannot summarize it by quoting the only thing it doesn't talk about. — JFG ^talk 00:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No. The author is bothered that the report did not make a convincing case, when it clearly could have. This is why he spent so much time in the article explaining that virtually everyone knows Russia is to blame, and it was pathetic that that report didn't knock it out of the park. Did you read that article? The author talks about conspiracy theories (denialism) in no less than six paragraphs. That's a major gripe, not something he threw out in the opening and then, somehow, forgot about. Geogene (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

So you agree with me that the author's main point is to criticize the agencies' report. And I agree with you that the author wishes the report had shown more direct and convincing evidence of the Russian interference and Trump collusion. Proponents of this interference story will read this article as healthy criticism of the agencies' work encouraging them to do better, and people who already doubted the intelligence story will feel vindicated by the lack of proof in a document whose purpose was precisely to bring out damning evidence. Those are two equally valid interpretations, although they are just that, interpretations of what cybersecurity experts Poulsen, Lee and Graham wrote.

Now let's scan the article fully for phrases that could be construed as "conspiracy theories":

• Vladimir Putin need do nothing but sit back and chuckle mirthlessly while U.S. officials shoot themselves in the foot. (conspiracy theory portraying Putin as a supervillain)
• it enables the Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists trying to explain away that evidence (calling Trump supporters "conspiracy theorists" when they question the evidence of Russian interference and/or collusion)
• They’re handing out bad information to the industry when good information exists. (conspiracy theory that intelligence agencies are either incompetent or complicit with Trump, because they are drowning the available good evidence in a sea of bad evidence, instead of bringing the good evidence to light)
• It turns out that some, perhaps most, of the watchlisted addresses have a decidedly weak connection to the Kremlin, if any. (conspiracy theory that the evidence presented is indeed very poor or irrelevant, implying that either there is no compelling evidence or the agencies deliberately chose to obfuscate it)
• Russian hackers use Tor, but so do plenty of other people. (fact that we can't tell who attacks a service via the Tor obfuscation network)
• a Vermont utility company, Burlington Electric Department, followed DHS’s advice and added the addresses to its network monitoring setup. It got an alert within a day. The utility called the feds, and The Washington Post soon broke the distressing news that “Russian hackers penetrated [the] U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont.” The story was wrong. (conspiracy theory that Russians hacked the U.S. power grid)
• The Grizzly Steppe report also gives succor to those who argue that the identity of the DNC and John Podesta hackers is unknown, and perhaps unknowable. […] By kind-of-but-not-really publishing forensic data on the DNC and Podesta hacks, and mixing it with other material, the administration fed right into that story line and fattened it up. (conspiracy theory that U.S: intelligence agencies are unwittingly helping the case of people who don't believe their every word "on pure faith".)
• the FBI didn’t even examine the DNC’s harddrives (conspiracy theory that the FBI did a sloppy job)

I don't see the word "denialism", "denial" or even "deny" anywhere, and the word "truther" was injected in the headline without being mentioned in the text (and you know the editor writes headlines, not the author). Again, summarizing this article as "enabling Trump conspiracists" is a severely biased reading of what the authors say, because it represents a small part of their argument. Anyway, "conspiracy theory" is a poisoned word, which people throw at each other when they simply disagree about a particular narrative, here the IC narrative vs the Russian narrative. Both sides are convinced that people who believe the "other" narrative are conspiracy theorists or worse, nutcases or evil manipulators.

Perhaps we could rephrase our prose to avoid this loaded word while accurately conveying what the source is saying? Here's a suggestion:

Former hacker Kevin Poulsen, quoting security researchers Robert M. Lee and Robert Graham, stated that the December 2016 intelligence report was "useless" because it confused the public with irrelevant warnings while obfuscating the actual evidence of Russian hackers' intervention as compiled by cybersecurity firms, thus unwittingly supporting the case of people who deny the intervention.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene, SPECIFICO, and K.e.coffman: Any comments on my proposed text to better represent the source? — JFG ^talk 11:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. Geogene (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

For reasons stated in my edit comment, I removed @JFG:'s reinsertion of the disputed content. The article is about misinterpretation of the report to suggest the conclusion that the intelligence assessment was incorrect. The term "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists", which @K.e.coffman: wrote a better version with those words intact, and @Geogene: clearly explained that the thrust of the article is to affirm the Russian interference while expressing disappointment in the declassified report as a report. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You are not addressing my assertion that mentioning "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" is not a representative summary of the article. Please read the detailed discussion with Geogene above and tell us why the proposed compromise text is not acceptable to you. — JFG ^talk 17:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There are 25+ active editors on this page, so it will be evident when you have broad support for an edit. In general, folks don't rush to comment when they are more or less OK with the preexisting condition, and @K.e.coffman: offered another alternative. Time will tell. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Active editors are free to express themselves any time. Their WP:SILENCE can not be construed to be either in favor of your preferred version or mine. Again, because you reverted my initial edit, I am urging you to state and justify your position on the merits of the compromise text above. — JFG ^talk 20:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Still waiting for your reasoned opinion about the proposed text above. — JFG ^talk 20:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've stated it many times. Please review at your convenience. Also, as any WP editor knows, repetitive assertions of rejected opinions are often met with silence from editors who have moved on to more productive efforts. You should not interpret the disengagement of various editors as acceptance of your POV. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you are again not answering the substantive question. Why is the label "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" a better summary of the article than my proposed text? — JFG ^talk 23:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2017 French election article

This seems to be hitting pretty hard in France currently.

https://nyti.ms/2pPuREe

Should we start another article on the 2017 Presidental election in France and make both this article and the French article a sub of a general article on Russian interference in elections? Casprings (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be hitting the fan over there, news blackout or not. I would say that Hacking of the Macron campaign is already notable enough for a standalone article, and there's probably one (or more!) such articles already underway. And while I'd eat my hat if it's not Fancy Bear, I'm not sure that reliable sources are definitely pinning it on Russia yet (?) For this article, I'd suggest a See Also for now but not any big changes yet. Geogene (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that such an article would be notable. Also, Geogene: "Groups linked to Russia, that are also believed to have been involved in the hacking related to the 2016 United States presidential campaign, have previously been accused of trying to breach the Macron organization. Security experts tracking the activity of suspected Russian hackers say they believe those same groups were involved in this latest attack." (NYT). Neutrality^talk 04:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess I can admire the ability of NYT to cram so many weasel words into one paragraph. I am in Paris, I am unsure whether or not this qualifies for an article of its own, rather than a section in the French presidential election article. I would be careful regarding attribution of the hacks to Russia, which would be especially inappropriate to do implicitly in an article title, while this is being openly noted as merely "suspected" or "believed". Those in other countries can feel differently but within France commentary on the election in the last 48 hours of the campaign is regulated; the hack happened, it is notable, but it is unclear what impact will occur, or whether the contents of the leak are important enough to influence the election outcome -- and basically yelling "Russia did it!" without any evidence could itself influence the election by increasing sympathy for Macron through invoking paranoia against a foreign Other, and so I would caution the approach should be as rational as possible avoiding sensationalistic implications or putting too much weight on speculations. Adlerschloß (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet another nothingburger. French pundits are also commenting on Obama's overt support for Macron, explicitly calling French people to vote for him just three days before the election. Should we then start an article called American influence on the French presidential election? I don't think so. — JFG ^talk 10:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

In no way is a retired foreign leader's endorsement of a candidate in his individual capacity as a private citizen comparable to a covert, coordinated, state-sponsored hacking and theft of a candidate's documents (and creation of fabricated documents). Neutrality^talk 04:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that such an operation exists - which we can't assume, of course. As with "Russian interference in the 2016 United states elections" (sic), we have accusations, but we don't know with any certainty who's behind the hacks/leaks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is paying us to crack the case. Just to report RS accounts when appropriate per WP content policy. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not about France or Obama, stay on topic. This adds nothing about this article, and I ask for this to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the most logical place to discuss a potential new article very closely linked to this subject. Nothing to see here. Move along. Geogene (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well this or the article on the Presidential election. I will start a link to it there. Casprings (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As the primary contributor to that article, I doubt there's actually enough substantive content to warrant an article. There's the Trend Micro report, this email dump (which contains nothing of note except for the fact that Laurence Haïm only makes 6k and someone's ordering meth under Alain Tourret's name), and the Macron camp's accusations that Russian state media (RT and Sputnik) spreads fake news about his campaign, but what, that'll get you four paragraphs in total at most? There's nothing to see and unlike in the U.S., the Russian stories has never had a significant impact on the campaign. Mélencron (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Or one about foreghn interventions in elections.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Le Pen is oddly friendly to Putin and negative to both NATO and the EU. The fact that this pattern is repeating seems historically significant and the articles sources are likely to grow. That said, as of now, I think there is enough out there.Casprings (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You're getting way off-topic, and what you are saying is complete nonsense. Le Pen's stance on Russia and Putin is not unusual at all in contexts of French politics. 3 of the 4 leading candidates in the election's first round -- Le Pen, Fillon, and Mélenchon -- support diplomatic rapprochement with Russia. Fillon wanted to lift EU sanctions that were imposed after Russia's annexation of Crimea, Mélenchon has even offered support for Russia's military interventions in both Ukraine and Syria. Add Dupont-Aignan (who finished in 6th place, barely behind the ruling party's candidate, Hamon), and 66% of the total first-round vote went to candidates friendly to Russia. Say what you want about Le Pen but frendliness to Russia looks less odd in context than US coddling of the dictators of Saudi Arabia (a medieval absolute theocracy that beheads people convicted of sorcery, and sponsors terrorist groups), or political leaders of Israel (an Apartheid state openly committing ethnic cleansing as praxis for 19th century-style settler colonialism). And Front National has always been hostile to the EU and its antecedent institutions. And look at the foreign policy positions of Le Pen's father over the years. The "patterns" you are seeing cannot be merely ascribed to a "Putin under the bed" conspiracy theory, and you seem completely unaware of longer trends in French politics, also lacking more general sociological awareness, and what you are saying will seem ridiculous or cartoonish to anyone outside of McCarthy-land. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That comment strikes me as inappropriate and unconstructive for an article talk page. Also rude. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the sources as they develop, I think at this point you clearly have enough WP:RS to develop an article. Given this is another attack using hacking to influence an election and support a pro-russian person (Le Pen), I think this makes a lot of sense to have this article and make a master article that nests the two article. That would allow further article development, such as Russian influence in the Ukraine, etc.Casprings (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Over in articles around french politics, we (seem to) run it super tightly. I've told you this on the 2017 presidental page Casprings, there isn't enough information yet and just claims from the Macron campaign. Calm yourself and stop fretting about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolvesS (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Take it here [37] this is the most logical place.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Another article with a highly POV (and factually dubious) title about a quickly developing subject? No thanks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

At this point it's too early for such an article. And in that particular case, unlike here, there is (yet) no evidence or even official claims that it was Russia. Of course the hacking and leaking itself is notable and should be discussed in the relevant article. Otherwise, as of right now, this is a red herring as far as *this* article is concerned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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, [38] which was reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, [39] While the wording in the RFC originally had "accused", user:DrFleischman suggest the wording conclusion [40], which was agreed to by myself [41] 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" [42] 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 [43]). 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. [44] 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)

• Comment – 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)

Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE

There has been a little bit of an edit war to shoehorn the opinion of Dan Goodin into this article. I don't see that his opinion is widely-cited. It seems WP:UNDUE and we have much better sources than Ars Technica to rely on for expert opinions. I think this content should be removed. What do other think?- MrX 14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE This is clearly FRINGEy COATRACK stuff at this point. As established at previous talk discussion, Goodin is not a notable journalist and this content does not belong in the article. The edit war has been stopped and the content will no doubt be removed by the next passer-by. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE. Agreed. It's also outdated by further events and better sources. It should be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion was to keep a brief mention of him in the article. Unless I am missing it I am not sure what you are referring to when you said it was established hes not notable? PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Remove based on WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk),

• DUE – Ars Technica is a highly respected technology publication and they regularly publish relevant commentary on cybersecurity. Dan Goodin is one of their top journalists. I see absolutely no reason to discount his analysis as fringe or undue. — JFG ^talk 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to a personal opinion but he is not wp-NOTABLE. eom. That's a first order screen of random opinions by journalists or pundits. As you know, this bit is out of date and reflects a view that is currently so marginal as to be extinct among notable journalists and accredited experts. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to suggest Ars Technica is a marginal source? -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE – Ars (which leans left) has a record of publishing well-researched, authoritative pieces on several technical topics. It would be difficult to find a more qualified security expert than the author (security editor Goodin) at any major publication. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He's not WP:NOTABLE. Please respond to the given problem. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He's the security editor for Ars Technica. Do you have any evidence that Ars Technica is not notable? -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Straw man. See previous 2 posts of SPECIFICO. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, are you able to support your claim that "It would be difficult to find a more qualified security expert than [Goodin]" with some evidence—perhaps some cites?- MrX 20:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A Google Book search shows a number of citations to Goodin's work. WP:IRS suggests we evaluate the publication as well; Ars Technica is also frequently cited. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That is your OR. The opinion of a non-notable writer is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR isn't relevant here. MrX asked about Goodin's qualifications, and James J. Lambden showed that Dan Goodin is cited in various books about cybersecurity. WP:OR says that we can't insert our own original research into articles. It says nothing about us not being allowed to figure out whether someone we're considering citing is competent. Throwing around Wikipedia policy acronyms out of context isn't at all helpful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Judging the reputation of an author or publication by the frequency of their citations in other publications is not in any way WP:OR. Please stop this disruption. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Find 5-6 mainstream publications that cite Mr. Goodin's opinion on the report and you will begin to make some headway on this. Also, please. It hurts my feelings when you accuse me of disruption. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings, BullRangifer, SPECIFICO, and MrX: Thank you for posting here. Let's be honest, "FRINGEy" is not a policy. Neither Goodin [45] nor Ars Technica are "fringe" sources and you've provided no links or data to suggest as much. Furthermore COATRACK doesn't apply to a source about the Joint Analysis Report if it is cited a section called "Joint Analysis Report." A coatrack for what - the subject at hand?

Here is what Goodin writes:

Talk about disappointments. The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

.

Goodin also writes that "anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves," and

Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks... [the JAR] largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity.

Goodin's analysis, and those he cites, are consistent with other publications from the period. Counterpunch has a piece [46] that states,

For a document that purports to offer strong evidence on behalf of U.S. government allegations of Russian culpability, it is striking how weak and sloppy the content is. Included in the report is a list of every threat group ever said to be associated with the Russian government, most of which are unrelated to the DNC hack... nowhere in the document is any evidence provided to back up the claim of a Russian connection. Indeed, as the majority of items on the list are unrelated to the DNC hack, one wonders what the point is.

This is similar to analysis from a news piece in The Guardian suggesting the report had little credibility among experts:

The report was criticized by security experts, who said it lacked depth and came too late... Security experts on Twitter criticized the government report as too basic. Jonathan Zdziarski, a highly regarded security researcher, compared the joint action report to a child’s activity center.

France 24 has a somewhat more political take on the affair [47], writing that the report is theatre to justify the expulsion of diplomats (JFG pardon me if my translation is off in some way):

To justify sanctions against Russia, Barack Obama relied upon a report from the FBI that made Moscow responsible for the hacks during the American presidential election... In effect no concrete element placing responsibility for the cyberattacks on Moscow can be found in the FBI and DHS conslusions.

Similarly, French BFM TV writes a skeptical article [48] titled, "Election hijacking: FBI accuses the Russians ... without apparent proof." Arguing that this material is WP:UNDUE requires ignoring all this reporting.

Not only is Goodin's analysis consistent with others, it also reflects what a chorus of editors here (TFD, N-HH, Thucydides411, K.e.coffman, Adlerschloß, etc.) have been saying for months: there is a difference between what intelligence agencies might state, and what we actually know via reliable sources. There is no reason in policy to exclude every source that disagrees with the statements of American intelligence services and your personal political views. And that's OK. You can (and should) cite critical commentary without leading readers.

Lastly, I see that Lord Roem has taken upon themselves to ban Thucydides411 for adding the Goodin material, which is a pretty impetuous or aggressive move considering the context. Markbassett and JFG have both argued here to include Ars Technica as a source (recently), and a consultation of the archives appears to show consensus for its inclusion in the past (Archive 3). -Darouet (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE Unsurprising that not every expert out there agrees that Russia is at fault, but the overwhelming majority of them do. This non-notable one doesn't merit inclusion. Geogene (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Geogene that's not an accurate summary of responses to the JAR and you've provided no evidence to indicate otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Goodin's analysis does not gain credibility simply because you found a few sources that have reached similar conclusions. What would be much more convincing is to show a list of sources that cite this "top" journalist from this "authoritative" publication.- MrX 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe these examples were given in response to the comments suggesting his conclusions were "FRINGEy." Other sources reaching similar conclusions are directly relevant to that point. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Leaning towards no inclusion -- not because the opinion is "Undue" or "Fringy", but because the para is fine as it is without the Ars Technica quote (shown in the diff by the OP as the "before" version). This is veering towards excessive intricate detail, especially as the Daily Beast quote in the same para is really good. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And thus do we confirm what was already known: There is no consensus to include this bit in the article and it may be safely removed like a hotswap hard drive. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE: Ars Technica is obviously a fine source for analysis of the technical case on alleged Russian hacking. It's a well-respected technology publication, and this sort of issue is its bread and butter. Dan Goodin has been writing for over a decade on computer security, for the Associated Press, The Register and Bloomberg, and is now the "Security Editor" for Ars Technica, so he's clearly competent to write on the subject. His article on the JAR is a good run-down of what various cybersecurity researchers thought about the report. Goodin's view isn't "Fringy" (he's reflecting the views of several prominent security researchers), and it isn't UNDUE (it concerns the JAR directly, and summarizes the dominant view among security researchers). I frankly don't understand the vehement opposition to including a quote from his article. Does anyone care to explain why they're so adamant that Dan Goodin shouldn't be cited? It's just puzzling to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He's not WP:NOTABLE. it's his opinion. He's. not. notable. Fin SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ars Technica is notable, Goodin is a senior editor for it, and has worked at other news agencies around the world. Of course he is. Arguing otherwise is extraordinary, especially at a tech-centric place like Wikipedia. If you want to convince anyone and if your objections are good-faith, go to WP:RSN. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all whether Dan Goodin is WP:NOTABLE; all we need to establish is that he, along with Ars Technica, is a WP:RS. They are, beyond any doubt. — JFG ^talk 05:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RS? It's his opinion. Is my opinion going in the article? I used to work for Le Monde. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The cited article is not an opinion piece. Goodin reports on facts, analysis and opinions of various experts about the subject matter. It's called journalism, as your former press card surely shows. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My original argument still stands. It should be removed because it's outdated by further events and better sources.

I have no problem with Ars Technica or Goodin, per se. Ars Technica is an excellent source, and Goodin might be an expert, but his opinion, and others who share that opinion, have been overrun by further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions. They are therefore NOW fringe opinions, even if they may not have been in the early days where much was not known. To give them prominence now gives them undue weight in relation to newer information from better sources. Remove it, and other sources with equally outdated opinions of that nature.

If we were to keep Goodin and others of that persuasion, they should be moved to a "history" section which shows that in the early days with little evidence, there were doubters. Their opinions are now relegated to the rubbish heap of outdated theories. Such a rubbish heap exists for medical and scientific matters, but I'm not sure we want such a heap in this type of article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well put, and the harsh reality is that, unlike in medicine and engineering -- where the state of knowledge is constantly advancing -- reportorial rubbish is more frequently associated with efforts evincing less knowledge and insight. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: What "further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions" do you mean? Dan Goodin's article discusses the JAR, and summarizes the very harsh reviews it got from cybersecurity experts. We have a section on the JAR, and that section should note how it was received. Are there newer, better sources that say the JAR was well received by cybersecurity experts? Please list them, because I haven't seen them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to the abundant RS which affirm that the foreign and American intelligence communities are convinced that Russian hackers performed the hacking. The 35-page dossier gets even more specific, mentioning not just Russian hackers, but also Romanian hackers controlled by Putin, but paid by Trump. Note that evidence of who performed the hacking isn't only found in technical data, but also in evidence from surveillance of involved persons talking about it. To illustrate, a burglar can be convicted on technical data (finger prints, possession of stolen goods, etc.) and/or surveillance evidence of their own speech or the speech of accomplices. When crooks brag, that too is evidence.

At this time, no serious RS harbor any doubts that the Russians did it. Only fringe sources and older references express such doubts.

I'm not going to do any OR to second-guess the best sources, and I'm not going to give credence to outside and fringe observers who try to second-guess them. I suggest you also refrain from such OR or from using the speculations of fringe and old sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are "abundant RS" that contradict Dan Goodin (and the cybersecurity experts he cites) and say that the JAR contained strong evidence, then it should be easy for you to list a few. So far, you haven't. "I suggest you also refrain from such OR or from using the speculations of fringe and old sources." I don't know what original research you're talking about: I'm talking about an article by Dan Goodin in Ars Technica, not my own research. I also don't know what "fringe" sources you're talking about. Ars Technica certainly isn't "fringe." And I don't know what your point is about the article being "old" (5 months, to be precise). Are you suggesting that there's some newer source that does a better job of describing the JAR?

"At this time, no serious RS harbor any doubts that the Russians did it." Please read the section immediately following this one. BBC and Reuters treat "the Russians did it" as an allegation that may or may not be true. Are BBC and Reuters not serious?

Please, be more concrete, because you're making a lot of very bold statements without showing any evidence. Give a reason why BBC and Reuters should not be taken seriously, and list sources that contradict Dan Goodin's reporting on the JAR. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Abundant RS affirm that US intelligence has issued an assessment. That is not the same as affirming the truth of that assessment, which obviously has not occurred to this point. Intelligence agencies are dubious as sources; it is important to report what they are saying when that is notable, but treating them as either perfectly competent or perfectly honest, when the underlying evidence beneath their claims has not even been displayed, would obviously be inappropriate, or even evidence of an "authoritarian mindset" that has always plagued societies (some people feeling they do not need to see evidence for a claim, because they trust a structural authority). Intelligence agencies are often incorrect, incompetent, and dishonest, full stop. US intelligence even in recent years has often displayed these attributes.

It stretches comprehension to claim that RS reporting the stated assessment of dubious intelligence agencies (an assessment offered without proof, to "protect intelligence sources", conveniently) would qualify as making earlier technical analysis actually based on evidence "outdated."

I am unsure why you would even mention the 35 page dossier in this context when RS pretty universally describe it as "unverified" or worse. Bob Woodward called it a "garbage document." Adlerschloß (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Looking at the above discussion, I count 5 editors in favor of inclusion of Dan Goodin's analysis, 5 against, and one leaning against (K.e.coffman). You've removed not only Dan Goodin's analysis of the JAR, but that of Kevin Poulsen, saying, "looking at talk this does not appear to have support." That's not an accurate statement, given the 5 editors above favoring inclusion of Dan Goodin's analysis. Moreover, K.e.coffman explicitly said in their statement that the Daily Beast quote is "really good," so I take it they wouldn't favor your deletion of that quote. Instead of there being "no support" for the material you've removed, there appears to be a majority here that would actually oppose your deletion. Given that, you should self-revert, and you should refrain in the future from leaving false edit summaries. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Correct -- Either Ars Technica or Daily Beast should be included; see the "before" version here: diff. I participated in an earlier discussion on the Daily Beast quote and the material arrived at seemed to work fine back then. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE. Ars Technica is an excellent source and Goodin is a well-known security journalist. An anecdotal aside here, years ago in San Francisco I was recommended to seek employment at Ars, and Goodin was the person I was actually supposed to speak with. That ended up not happening; but I can note that the person who referred me to Goodin was a keynote speaker at multiple computer security conferences, and was nominated for multiple Pwnie awards over the years (receiving an honourable mention at one, which is actually mentioned in our Wikipedia article on the subject). Goodin regularly attends the Baysec computer security professionals meetup in San Francisco which is one the most elite such gatherings in the entire world (and I'm sure "Russiagate" has been extensively discussed there), basically he can in no way be derogated as "fringe" in contexts of the industry. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You showed up for a job interview and didn't meet Mr. Goodin therefore the non-NOTABLE Mr. Goodin whom you didn't meet should be quoted in this WP article? And you say you've heard that Mr. Goodin hangs out at an open meetup called Baysec? SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You are mischaracterising my recounting. My point was that Goodin was held in very high regard by one of the leading reverse engineers in the world. Regarding Baysec, attending regularly for years would entail Goodin communicating often with globally-leading information security experts, from both the private and public sector, in an informal setting in which everyone is "saying what they really think." I am sure "Russiagate" and evidence regarding that narrative (or lack thereof) were substantively discussed.

Any source that contradicts a narrative that is being strangely and anomalously pushed on en.wiki through pointing out the obvious, namely that none of this has been proved and almost no evidence has been offered to substantiate the allegations, is being maligned and dragged through the mud, called "fringe", as occurred with Jeffrey Carr. The point is, I happen to personally know that Goodin is not regarded as fringe by anyone whose expertise would be relevant in this context. It is bizarre and confusing why anyone confident of their own assessment on this matter would be working so hard to keep sources out of the article that display what is, again, the obvious: that there is no technical proof justifying the US intelligence assessment of this. Generally those confident about their own viewpoint do not work to censor opposing arguments or evidence, and the repeated pattern of this here is suspicious itself (I feel rather agnostic on the specificity of accusations against Russia, but the behaviour of those wishing to depict that accusation as proved or universally accepted when it obviously isn't is suspicious enough to cast the accusations themselves in a new light for me). Adlerschloß (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Adler, I have read what you said about Mr. Goodin. You are presenting your personal conclusion, based on the sort of inference and circumstantial information every human uses in everyday life. We all sink or swim by our savvy reactions to people and events. But WP editors are not supposed to rely on our personal opinions when we propose content for the encyclopedia. I hope that with some reflection you can understand that your personal confidence as to who's who in the IT world is yours alone, and that it cannot relied on by the community here without RS documentation as to Mr. Goodin's standing as a WP:NOTABLE expert whose opinion needs to be published in an encyclopedia.

It's amusing sometimes to watch the Americans on their cable-TV news programs. I read the mainstream US media and I do sometimes indulge in some CNN and the like along with my BBC and RAI. I haven't seen anyone pausing to say "alleged interference" in a long time. Occasionally last year, occasionally in January this year, but as of May 2017, it's a WP:FRINGE POV that the Russians did not interfere. And anyway it's telling that you appear to think Goodin's questioning the interference when in fact he's criticizing the US Gov't's need to withhold classified information from the published summary report. Finally, your wrap-up is kind of surprising. If the efforts of 20-30 WP editors who struggle to sustain the mainstream narrative here makes you doubt the underlying facts as to geopolitical events, that seems like one giant leap for mankind -- logically speaking. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE, Not notable. Opinion of a writer at an online tech mag. I don’t see where he has any experience in counterespionage. Objective3000 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: What level of "experience in counterespionage" would you require a journalist to have before you would agree to quoting them in the article? I would have thought being the "Security Editor" for a well-respected technology publication, and a former cybersecurity journalist for major publications like Bloomberg, AP and The Register would be enough qualification. Does he have to be a former intelligence agent? I'm just trying to get a sense of what threshold you're setting before we can cite a journalist's work here. After you've set that level, perhaps we can go through the article and remove all the reporting by journalists who don't meet it (and since Goodin is probably one of the most expert journalists we cite, we'll most likely have to delete most of the journalistic sources in the article). -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I probably have more experience in the area than he, going back to the 70s. And I most certainly don't think I have the gravitas needed. He doesn't even know what he doesn't know as he has never been a part of the intelligence community. He is a writer in an online mag. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Experience regarding cybersecurity has been evidenced by many above, and that is at least as important in this context. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE Hes a well respected cyber security expert from an good reliable source. PackMecEng (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest include - I'll say seems obvious here's a prominent tech publication's cybersecurity lead giving an evaluation of the intelligence papers ... obviously relevant source with authority on topic, and seems more relevant than including right behind it of 'former hacker' from the Daily Beast who is saying much the same thing: both saying 'that did not give evidence'. Leave it in and move along, or else put it to a RFC. Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at the suggestion that a non-WP:NOTABLE writer is being called an authority on the technical subject of cybersecurity-cum-counterintelligence. Moreover as many editors have said many times: The non-classified report is not the basis for the human mainstream's near-universal acceptance of the fact that Russians interfered. If there are flaws in the report, that would mean that there could have been a "better" (per some undefined standard) unclassified public statement on the matter. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that the US Government is too dumb to figure this out with the vast resources and information available to the US and its allies' intelligence services. Anyway, if there is significant commentary about the report itself, we would need to find a notable expert, not an internet journalist. When there are important points deserving DUE weight, there's no scarcity of RS citations. I would like to see an acknowledged counterespionage cybersecurity expert, perhaps a distinguished former intelligence official (not an Iraq-war-era weapons sleuth) who articulates the problems in a compelling way that can provide the basis for article content. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing puzzling about it. Dan Goodin is the Security Editor for Ars Technica, and he previously wrote for Bloomberg, AP and The Register on cybersecurity. If a respected tech publication like Ars Technica (along with AP, Bloomberg and The Register) thinks he's qualified to write on this subject, and even to make him their senior editor on such topics, then he almost certainly is qualified. "If there are flaws in the report, that would mean that there could have been a "better" (per some undefined standard) unclassified public statement on the matter. That's all it means." That's your own personal speculation. All we can do in the article is reflect what journalists have written about the JAR. "Anyway, if there is significant commentary about the report itself, we would need to find a notable expert, not an internet journalist." This may surprise you, but some of the best tech publications are published on the Internet. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The responses you have posted to half a dozen editors here are entirely unresponsive, misrepresent the demonstrated flaws and objections, and pose straw man deflections instead of simple proffers of the material that would support inclusion of your POV in the article. BTW there are millions of journalists roaming the planet, each of them with their fans and admirers. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts. Please show me the policy that says Wikipedia can only cite notable journalists. — JFG ^talk 20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I reverted this edit of yours (but recovered your citation fix), because the context of the articles by Goodin and Poulsen is clear. They were both written shortly after the JAR was published, so there's no reason to repeatedly state the publication dates. You wrote in your edit summary, "add dates for context. When these opinions were written is crucial. ALL early reports were "alleged" and doubting, while many later ones are more certain." I don't see any evidence for the dates of the opinions being crucial. You've now claimed several times that there are abundant reliable sources that contradict Goodin's analysis of the JAR, but so far, you haven't posted a single one. I don't think the general evaluation of the JAR as a very weak report has changed since early January 2017. If you have sources that say the evaluation of the JAR has indeed changed, by all means, please post them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE Per JFG and Lambden. Jrheller1 (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Your edit summary includes an explicitly POV rationale: "The dates are necessary to show this is ancient information." In other words, you're trying to downplay the articles written by Goodin and Poulsen. You've stated repeatedly that Goodin and Poulsen's analyses of the JAR are contradicted by newer reliable sources, but I'm still waiting for you to find even a single source that supports your assertion. So, do you have those sources, or are you going to admit that you don't have them?

Enough is really enough: Goodin and Poulsen criticized the JAR heavily (as did other prominent cybersecurity experts, cited in Goodin's article). You can't just relativize every fact you don't like in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You have removed those dates before, and we shouldn't have to keep restoring them. Just as with attribution for opinions, including dates for time sensitive commentary can be important. We often do this. Since we haven't yet created an actual timeline of events, as suggested, this is the next best thing. As for your comment about "weasel words", the part you removed was from the source. Without those words, the content is misleading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Need for parsing to determine due weight

@BullRangifer: Again, can you post your sources that contradict Goodin and Poulsen's analyses of the JAR?

Also, the version you've reverted to emphasizes one very minor aspect of Goodin's commentary - one that only gets a single sentence of mention in Goodin's piece. I can't help but conclude that you're just trying to downplay Goodin's criticism of the JAR, especially since you said explicitly in your edit summary that you'd like readers to know the criticism is "ancient." -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the current wording (my bold emphasis). A parsing of the whole concept, and of certain phrases, is crucial for any discussion about how editors here should determine due weight, and that's what the following is about:

"... Goodin criticized the Joint Analysis Report for its lack of evidence connecting hacking to Russian efforts to affect the U.S. election, while acknowledging that details were probably omitted so as not to reveal sources and methods of cyberattack detection."

Leaving out the bold balancing words of that second phrase of the sentence was really bad and clearly your "truther" attempt to push the idea that the Russians were not involved and are innocent. By doing so, undue weight was given to Goodin's other words of criticism. Even Goodin realizes that the report cannot be expected to tell the whole story, and, like any other intelligence report, it doesn't reveal all that is known by the experts in the investigation.

Criticisms on that basis are naive and should not be given much weight. While called an "analysis report", it's really just a morsel reluctantly thrown to the masses to appease them, rather than a completely open and comprehensive attempt to inform them. That's how the intelligence community functions. They have to do that. Everyone wants more info, including experts, and they are frustrated when they don't get more. C'est la vie. They should be happy they got anything at all. As long as the investigations are ongoing, and right now they are intensifying as more things are confirmed, we're not going to get the full story. If Trump's obstruction efforts are unsuccessful, we may see this cleared up in court.

I share the POV expressed by "former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, [who] stated that while there is solid evidence of Russia's interference from other sources,..." It is that "solid evidence" which should get more weight, and complaints given less weight, or not even mentioned when they are obviously contradictory to the facts. We shouldn't give "truthers" (your POV) any weight here. A passing mention showing how foolish they are would be all that should be allowed.

The reason I don't give this criticism of the JAR report much weight isn't because of other technical details which might find fault with it, if they even exist, but because there is so much other evidence (Kevin Poulsen's POV), which we also mention in the article. It shows that Russians were behind the hacking and interference. No doubt about it. Period. Full stop. (Only truthers doubt it.)

Technical data, especially the incomplete bits we know, should no longer be your sole focus. Stop giving it so much weight in your thinking. It doesn't change the bigger picture. Look at the big picture and realize that right now the technical data is a minor aspect which is deliberately slurred from our view, and therefore criticisms of it should not be given much weight at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the arguments made on this talk page appeal to the authority of the unseen evidence which remains hidden for protection of sources and methods. But the reliance on the classified version of the intelligence report is overblown. Even people who have seen it admit that there is not much more in there than in the declassified version.

The new report incorporates material from previous assessments and assembles in a single document details of cyber operations dating back to 2008. Still, U.S. officials said there are no major new bombshell disclosures even in the classified report. A shorter, declassified version is expected to be released to the public early next week.
— The Washington Post January 5, 2017 [49]

— JFG ^talk 16:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that just says that it's clear the Russians did interfere and that there are no conclusive pointers ("bombshells") to the further facts and details that are currently under investigation. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, I find this wording in the first phrase of the sentence rather awkward, especially the highlighted words:

"... for its lack of evidence connecting hacking to Russian efforts to affect the U.S. election, while acknowledging that details were probably omitted...."

I suspect there is some ambiguity there, so I'd like to know what you think that means. How should it be parsed?

1. Does it suggest there may not be any connection between the hacking and the Russians? Is Goodin a "truther", like you?
2. Does it mean we haven't explained well enough how the Russian hacking actually affected the elections?

We need more eyes to parse this phrase and then tweak it to clear up any ambiguity. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As editors respond to BullRangifier's very clear and well-founded concerns with respect to this content, bear in mind that the declassified reports are not the subject of this article. So to the extent that these critical pundits and blogotypes are directing their criticisms at the reports or at the fact that the intelligence agencies do not share all their sensitive and privileged information with the internet, this content is really off-topic and classic UNDUE. At some point we need to just get it out of the article and work on the mounting backlog of relevant significant RS reporting on core content. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just an assertion. As I asked BullRangifer almost a month ago:

(BullRangifer speaking): No, just no. Those who understand these things best have "concluded" that Russia interfered in the election, and numerous RS have so stated. This is a very controversial proposal. One cannot make such a decision based on the presence or absence of one word. It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed. Investigations since then have been on the basis that the allegations were correct, and discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it, and that Putin directed it.

What's left is to confirm the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election. So far what's been discovered tends strongly to confirm that allegation. So far we're calling that part an allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(JFG speaking) Regarding the lead section, you should both comment in the RfC. Somehow all discussions have turned into a kind of source battle on the word "alleged" but that's not what the amended text says, so I would appreciate that opinionated editors give a honest look and state their position.

Now, BullRangifer, I wish you could convince me about your statements:

1. "It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed" – what confirmation did we get besides the allegations, started by CrowdStrike and the DNC in June 2016 and repeated ad nauseam by US intelligence services and politicians since then, that Russian intelligence services were the perpetrators of DNC hacks and acted as sources to WikiLeaks, while being directed by Putin himself? On what basis, and by whom, were these inferences made? And with which evidence?
2. "Those who understand these things best" – you mean the intelligence services of a nation alleging misdeeds by intelligence services of another nation? or a political party who happened to lose an unlosable election alleging misdeeds by a rival political party who happened to win it? or established members of a political party alleging misdeeds by a newcomer into their party who happened to win the support of their voters, to their dismay? or vested interests who fear what an "unfit" president may bestow upon them?
3. "discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it" – Which discoveries have confirmed anything? I read an awful lot about this issue, and see only innuendo. If you have seen some tangible confirmations which are not mere allegations, I'd love to see them.

Never received an answer. Please enlighten me as to this "mounting backlog" of evidence confirming the Russian intervention since the initial allegations of June 2016. — JFG ^talk 16:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Opening

Timothyjosephwood, some time ago you proposed something of an overview to begin the "background" section of this article: Archive 4.

Now, the "background" section simply begins with a lengthy block quote from American intelligence agencies, with no introduction, no explanation of what this text even is until after it's appeared, and not a single voice of skepticism or nuance appearing anywhere (nor, for that matter, Russia's own position via Putin himself, other spokespeople for the Russian government, Russian media, etc).

It's probably fair to see this section as an allegory for the article overall: I'm not sure how it's happened but despite heated argument every day here for months, there is little to no balance. Surely we as a community can do far better than this. To ping some longtime editors who've been active here (and disagreed with me) @MelanieN, DHeyward, EvergreenFir, and Softlavender:: do you see this as appropriate? -Darouet (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Again pinging @Timothyjosephwood, MelanieN, and DHeyward: TMJ you'd drafted the background section I mentioned, and MN and DH you remain active in discussions here. You've also not commented on the BBC / Reuters editorial issue. -Darouet (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Editorial policy: alleged

Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials. I also spent some time reading other wiki articles on this topic. Basically, despite longstanding objections from dozens of editors here, a cautious editorial policy (something that the BBC has somehow managed) is thrown to the wind. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC and Reuters

The BBC (News, Global News, Newsday, Newshour, Business Matters, Radio 4) routinely describes “alleged interference” or “possible hacking.” This appears to have been their policy in print and voice since the story broke, and it remains true today:

• "On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups."" BBC 26 April
• "Then the roiling controversy over alleged Russian interference in the presidential election turned Moscow into a toxic subject in Washington." BBC 13 April
• “A US intelligence report released in January alleged that Vladimir Putin had tried to help Mr Trump to victory, allegations strongly denied the Russian president.” BBC 10 April
• “US Congressman forced to step down from the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the presidential election.” BBC 6 April
• “Both the House and Senate intelligence committees and the FBI are investigating alleged Kremlin interference in the US election” BBC 4 April
• “US Senate to probe allegations of Russian involvement in presidential election” BBC 30 March
• “The committee is examining Russia's alleged interference in last year's election.” BBC 29 March
• “FBI chief confirms criminal probe into alleged Russian interference in 2016 US election” BBC 21 March
• “Did Russia interfere in last year’s presidential election? A US intelligence committee is hearing evidence about the Kremlin’s alleged involvement.” BBC 20 March
• “The US House Intelligence Committee will hear the testimony of the FBI Director James Comey as they look into allegations of Russian interference in last year's American presidential election.” BBC 20 March
• “FBI director James Comey has confirmed for the first time that the FBI is investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.” BBC 20 March
• “Hearings are being held on alleged Russian interference in the US election campaign, at Capitol Hill.” BBC 20 March
• “We speak to a Democrat Congressman about the latest on the allegations of Russian involvement in the US Presidential election.” BBC 20 March
• “President Trump's Attorney General says he'll step aside from involvement in any investigations about Moscow's alleged interference in last year's election.” 2 March
• “Last week President Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US over the alleged hacking” BBC 7 January
• “US expels 35 Russian diplomats as punishment for alleged interference in the presidential election” BBC 29 December
• “President Obama vows action over Moscow's alleged interference in the US election.” 16 December

Reuters appears to do the same thing:

• “Tillerson's visit was certain to be dominated by thorny issues. Those include alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election…” Reuters 10 April
• “Russian-state media service RT reported, citing his wife, that Levashov was suspected of being connected to hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year's U.S. election” Reuters 10 April
• “House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes is stepping aside from the panel's probe of possible Russian interference in the 2016 election” Reuters for WSJ 7 April
• “Michael Conaway (R-TX) awaits for FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers to testify to the House Intelligence Committee hearing into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election… But unlike Devin Nunes - who on Thursday stepped down as leader of the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election, including possible collusion with Trump associates - Conaway was not a member of the incoming president's transition team. Russia denies the allegations… And in a January interview with the Dallas Morning News, [Conaway] seemed to make light of the alleged Russian meddling in the election” Reuters 7 April
• “The House Intelligence Committee wants Susan Rice, a top aide in the Obama administration, to testify in a probe of alleged Russian election interference” Reuters for WSJ 5 April
• “The U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee will ask the directors of FBI and the National Security agency to appear in a closed session in its probe of allegations of Russian interference in U.S. elections” Reuters 24 March
• “U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on Monday it was not known whether any Americans helped Russia in an alleged hacking campaign aimed at swaying the Nov. 8 election” Reuters 20 March
• “FBI Director James Comey on Monday confirmed the agency was investigating possible Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election” Reuters 20 March
• “The charges came amid a swirl of controversies relating to alleged Kremlin-backed hacking of the 2016 U.S. presidential election” 16 Reuters March
• “President Barack Obama retaliated for Moscow's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Reuters 9 February

(I have found one example to the contrary, from 11 April):

• “Even before Trump ordered last week's strike in retaliation for a nerve gas attack, Tillerson's visit was certain to be dominated by thorny issues, including Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election” [50]

Nobody here has ever articulated why (or how we'd know) that the BBC or Reuters are wrong to be cautious. Should we be cautious? Or should Wikipedia lead the charge?

Other language Wikis

I don't think our article at present accurately conveys what is known and thought, by reliable sources, about these allegations around the world.

For instance the French article on this topic is titled, “Accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.” The Spanish article has the same title, “Accusations…” and the German article is titled “2016 hacking affair between Russia and the US.” The French article contains an 8-part section titled “Skepticism of the hypothesis of Russian interference,”

• The Accusations contested:
• Absence of proof
• Credibility of authorities placed in doubt
• Alternative hypotheses
• Conspiracy theories:
• To direct attention from stolen emails
• The explain Clinton’s defeat
• To sabatoge Trump’s election

These sections do what one expect given the circumstances of the allegations: cite journalists, cybersecurity experts, and political figures who are skeptical, and sometimes provide alternative explanations for the allegations. Among those cited:

• Edward Snowden, “If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it. But during the #Sony hack, the FBI presented evidence.” Le Monde
• Investigative journal Mediapart: “despite multiple accusations, often proffered to the press anonymously by intelligence officials, American authorities have brought no definitive proof that the Russian government is behind Guccifer 2.0” [51]
• Cybersecurity expert Nicolas Arpagian, “we still have but solemn political declarations. But no proof, no distinct or incontestable element…” Liberation or journalist Stephane Trano, “American intelligence services… are not required to produce the least element of public proof, since their information is by nature classified.” Marianne Or cybersecurity expert Gerome Billois, to the effect of, “many people could have hacked the DNC” France 24
• Statement from le Quotidian, “it’s impossible to take Washington’s words as good coin” after the recent claims of WMD, or the Gulf of Tonkin for that matter [52]
• William Binney and Ray McGovern Baltimore Sun
• Glenn Greenwald Monde DiplomatiqueThe Intercept
• Jean-Paul Bequiast, Florian Filippot MediaPart blogLe Monde, and a humorous commentary from Afrique Asie: “After a careful reading of 25 pages of the declassified, redacted report concocted by the American Intelligence Community, the ODNI (CIA, FBI, NSA, and fourteen other agencies), just one word comes to mind: nothing” [53]

Congratulations, you've managed to cherry picked some opinions statements that exist on the internet. That's great. Why should we care? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

By contrast, our article baldly declares the allegations are true (title), dedicates the beginning of the intro to a long quote directly from American intelligence agencies, and mostly quotes cybersecurity experts or former intelligence officials who believe the government has been too weak against Russia (except for instance in the “Joint Analysis Report” section).

We don't need to follow what the French Wikipedia does. But we need to consider how we've gotten to the point where we take an aggressive editorial line that this event really did occur (which it might have), when major news outlets like Reuters and the BBC don't. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concur -- the article intro should either include "alleged" or be moved to Investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment French Wikipedia is a joke. They are still trying to figure out who shot down the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine, and their article gives "equal time" between the Dutch Safety Board and Putinist propaganda. [54]. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet, they, the Spanish, and the Germans appear to generally follow a neutral editorial line as set out by the BBC and Reuters, whereas we do not. -Darouet (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what other language Wikipedias do. And by "follow a neutral editorial line" you simply mean "I like those versions better". Which is your right, but like I said, irrelevant here. Different Wikipedias have different policies. Likewise, BBC and Reuters aren't encyclopedias so they also do things differently. See WP:ALLEGED. We've been over this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC or Reuters editorial policies and attitudes are not irrelevant: these are considered flagship sources globally. If they write that hacking / interference is "alleged," they are not treating it as a fact but as an allegation. We have to be honest that if we treat interference as a fact, we are diverging from their policies about what is known, or not known. And while we are not obliged to follow other wikis, I've listed the approach taken by other language wikipedias because those approaches are consistent with reliable sources like the BBC and Reuters, whereas our approach is not. -Darouet (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

From WP:ALLEGED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." That's exactly the case here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't an RFC on this subject closed today? Consensus is pretty clear and this seems like a dead horse. If you disagree, I would suggest challenging the RFC's close.Casprings (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not challenging that RfC's close, since I think the issues raised here are broader than a choice between two options for a first sentence. -Darouet (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• We have to stop having this same discussion. That the Russian election interference happened is the neutral, widely-reported point of view. What is still to be determined is whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.- MrX 00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The editorial position of the BBC and Reuters appear to disagree with you. Why is that? -Darouet (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because they're not encyclopedias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I don't see your point. We're supposed to reflect reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX: No, that's not neutral at all, and what the above quotes that Darouet has put together show conclusively is that BBC and Reuters do not treat Russian interference as a fact. To reach compromise, we have to have a common basis to work from. One important aspect of that common basis has to be an acceptance by all editors here that reliable sources do not generally consider Russian interference a fact. We simply can't keep having this argument over and over again. Enough evidence has been presented to show that RSes generally treat Russian interference as uncertain, and to keep insisting that it's an established fact isn't reasonable at this point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• We must stop meeting here like this 😍 ... SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing a signature and I'm too lazy to search the history. So who took a quote from Trump and tried to attribute that as being the BBC's editorial stance? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm not even going to bother clicking on the rest of the links when the first one is that bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That is humorous: "alleged" is the BBC, the rest is Trump. If you are too lazy even to read one sentence, sure, why read anything else? -Darouet (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: The BBC says, On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups." Notice that "alleged" is in the voice of the BBC. Before commenting, please read through the quotes more carefully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How the hell is WP:PASSINGMENTION not an essay yet? Apparently it needs to be explained thoroughly and in-depth to a number of users. Not by me, though. I don't have the patience to deal with editors still complaining about something that's been settled by countless RfC's and talk page discussions. But I'll give it the passing mention treatment: Trump's words are the ONLY part of that quote that actually makes a claim. The rest is just semantics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC explicitly calls it "alleged Russian hacking," as they regularly do when discussing the subject. We've had countless RfCs, but something I've noticed is that whenever we get to a discussion of sources, you and a number of other editors declare that we've already discussed this and refuse to actually acknowledge how the sources treat this subject. Darouet just listed a few dozen BBC and Reuters articles that treat "Russian interference" as an allegation or a claim of unknown truth, rather than as a known fact, but you're not acknowledging that fact. This is how most reliable sources are treating the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahem. I've already explicitly addressed this. Are you sure you understand what this discussion is about? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how your post addresses this at all. You've been presented with a list of BBC articles that refer to "alleged" Russian interference, and your only response (other than that you're not willing to read them) is that one of the articles doesn't deal with the issue at great enough length. I'm sorry, but that's not a real argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how your post addresses this at all. Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it really seems like the problem isn't on my end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Whenever the BBC mentions "Russian hacking" or "Russian interference" in the US election, they always write "alleged." The same is true for Reuters. That is all this list shows - that they have had a consistent editorial policy that these are allegations, not facts. -Darouet (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has already proven this statement wrong, two comments below this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No, VM did not do anything of the sort. VM quoted two articles in which Reuters quotes US intelligence officials. Quoting someone doesn't mean you agree with them, or in any way endorse what they're saying. News agencies quote Trump all the time, but that doesn't mean they agree with him. When Reuters covers "Russian interference," it generally uses "alleged" (or a synonym), unless it's clear that Reuters is quoting someone else. When quoting someone else, it's clear that "Russian interfernce" is an allegation, and Reuters doesn't have to use the word "alleged." This is a really simple concept, and it's incredibly frustrating to go round and round in circles on it. Darouet has provided proof above of the editorial position that the BBC and Reuters have taken, and you're essentially ignoring it. We have to have a basic agreement on facts if we're going to get anywhere, and it's clear that BBC and Reuters treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concur: Many thanks for putting together this list. This shows us that BBC and Reuters do not treat "Russian interference" as a fact, but rather prefix it with "alleged," "possible," and similar phrases. To the editors who are quickly dismissing this (above: Casprings, Geogene, SPECIFICO, MjolnirPants), please take Darouet's effort a bit more seriously. Darouet has done us all a huge favor by going through BBC and Reuters articles and showing what their editorial policy is regarding "alleged." I really would like to think that Wikipedia is a collaborative place where people are able to reach compromise on how to present contentious topics - even topics as contentious as current American politics. But compromise requires that editors be open to changing their mind when evidence is presented. The above evidence shows that what several editors have been insisting (reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as a fact) is simply not true. If we can't have agreement on something as basic as this (something for which solid evidence has been presented), I don't think we'll be able to reach compromise on anything. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I typed in "Reuters Russian Hacking" into google. I got this [55]. The word "alleged" does not appear anywhere in the article. Neither does the word "supposed". The second hit was this. The word "alleged" does not appear anywhere in the article. Neither does the word "supposed". So I'm guessing the above lists was cherry picked to make a WP:POINT or is outdated. Regardless, there are also plenty of other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Marek, your first source attributes the claim of Russian hacking to US officials: "Russia succeeded in its goals of sowing discord in U.S. politics by meddling in the 2016 presidential election, which will likely inspire similar future efforts, two top former U.S. voices on intelligence said on Tuesday." Reuters isn't claiming that the claims of those officials are correct. Your second source does the exact same thing: "Congressional committees began investigating after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered hacking of Democratic political groups to try to sway the election toward Trump." Darouet could have cited those articles as well, and they would equally have bolstered the case that Reuters always treats "Russian interference" as an allegation (whether by attributing the claim or by explicitly saying "alleged"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh. So "concluded" is synonymous with "alleged". Gotcha. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand what's being discussed. We're not discussing what precise wording reliable sources use. We're discussing how they treat "Russian interference." Do they report it as a fact? Do they report it as a claim that certain people/groups are making? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Robocop is riding a unicorn. Your argument is invalid. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is there a point you're trying to make about the article? You said in your opening statement that you don't want to read the sources above, and now you're linking to random images on the web. I don't see what any of your posts here have to do with article improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I was just responding to your rebuttal with something equally valid and supported by evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Like for example, I could make a list for New York Times and Washington Post, maybe starting with Russian Hacking in the U.S. Election - Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. Notice the absence of "alleged" in that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I frankly acknowledge that the NYT and WP often write about interference from Russia as a fact. Reuters and the BBC never do so: for them it is always an allegation. But all four of those sources would never doubt the truth of evolution by natural selection, or the fact of the holocaust. In other words, among educated people and reliable sources, we recognize that we can have certainty about many things, but the fact of Russian interference in the US election. Right now we are taking a different, radical approach that is inconsistent with what we know via reliable sources. -Darouet (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I do take Darouet seriously and I dismiss him seriously. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of this comment? And stop gendering me. -Darouet (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Replying to bulleted point above beginning with concur. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur. As a general rule we should always lean toward being careful regarding how we describe unproven allegations. In this case the number of sources describing the charges as alleged, or even openly questioning the lack of evidence backing the accusations, is overwhelming. This is not even a remotely close call. Adlerschloß (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Reboot

The result of the RfC has properly been installed by Casprings. The wording is "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."

The RfC determined that "alleged" is not the proper word. "Concluded" is the proper word.

Why a "reboot"? Because the discussion is off-track because it is about what actually happened, not about the belief of "The United States government's intelligence agencies." One can have one's doubts about whether Russia was involved or not, but there can be no doubt that "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded..." THEY are not in doubt. We write their conclusion, not what someone thinks actually happened. Those are two different things.

This whole thread is way off track. This should end the discussion. Rehashing the RfC is not an option at this point. Such a rehashing is disruption. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If the opening sentence is to be as above, then this page needs to be retitled "What the US Intelligence Agencies Think About Russian Interference". Equally, given that this page actually has the broader title "Russian Interference ..", the topic should not be defined from the outset by one (interested) party's view of the matter. A page about a noted historical unsolved murder which has been the subject of wide-ranging inquiry and speculation would not simply start "The Police think Mr X killed Mr Y". As noted previously, yes the CIA et al have declared/concluded (with some caveats) the interference occurred but it remains, at the same time, an allegation, because the CIA is not a court of law with the power to declare facts. There is no contradiction there. The page should say at the outset that these are allegations; then go on to set out that the IC say this, others say that. Sadly, the reaction to the detailed evidence presented above as to how third-party sources are quite deliberately and consciously treating this story as an allegation (something which is obvious from watching and reading media in the UK) is symptomatic of the simplistic politicisation of the issue in real life and on this page. N-HH talk/edits 09:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of RfCs if they are ignored? Objective3000 (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but equally what is the point of RfCs if they are just railroaded by the same editors who have long been most active on the page and the outcome is at best wholly illogical and at worst politically motivated? Plus as noted by the starter of this thread, the issue is slightly broader and relates to the structure of the page as a whole rather than simply the exact wording of the first sentence. AFAICT, the option was between two versions of phrasing to describe the views of US agencies. My point is that we shouldn't privilege the views of US spy agencies or frame the article from the outset around their views, however we describe them. N-HH talk/edits 11:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Railroaded? Wholly illogical and at worst politically motivated? You don’t appear to have much respect for Wikipedia process. WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Time heals all wounds. Come back in 6 months. Maybe consensus will change. Maybe BBC will change. Nothing to see here for now. SPECIFICO talk 11:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean - the BBC and Reuters treat this as alleged for now, but maybe eventually they won't? That's not the way this works. "Nothing to see here for now" is equivalent to writing "who cares what reliable sources write?" -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note

User:Aceruss (recent account, with a small number of edits) - The Washington Examiner is NOT a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Has that been established? I see two discussions suggesting the answer depends on "for what?" Here it was used as a source for easily-verified, public testimony. Seems uncontroversial. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Affirmative. SPECIFICO talk 10:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OMG. This slow edit warring by Aceruss needs to stop. Once again we need to remove it because we already cover the subject. Aceruss just wants an old and outdated wording included. Our current coverage is up to date. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done} -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Firing of Comey

I think the firing of Comey is a pretty big deal when it comes to this investigation. I think it should maybe be in the opening paragraphs and given some WP:WEIGHT in the article. Thoughts?Casprings (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a big deal, but we can't give breaking news top billing in this article to imply that Trump fired Comey because Comey was investigating Trump. That is unknown at this point and merely the subject of speculation. I'm sure we will know more in a the next few days.- MrX 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

He fired Comey because of his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails. TFD (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't know why he was fired. We only know the reason claimed. Which is why we can't give this too much weight at this point. Objective3000 (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We know why WP:RS's say he was, and it wasn't the reasons put forth in the memo. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192 Casprings (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We have three well sourced paragraphs in the article, which is appropriate. Right now we have an entire sourced paragraph in the lede, which is NOT appropriate, violating several WP standards for ledes. If this is mentioned in the lede, it should be a sentence at most. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am good with cutting, but I would argue that you need a little more then a sentence. The FBI director just got fired because of the ongoing investigation over Russian interference. That seems pretty significant and historic.Casprings (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what I advised against. Unless there are sources that have stated as a fact that Comey was fired because of the ongoing investigation over Russian interference, we can't do it either, directly or by WP:Synthesis. Especially not in the lead! - MrX 02:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no Synthesis. This is just a summation of multiple WP:RS's including the Washington Post, New York Times, WSJ, etc. Very well sourced per wikipedia standards.Casprings (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing and there is no sources that support that extraordinary claim.. The deputy attorney general assigned to investigate Russian interference is the same person that wrote the memo excoriating Comey for accepting the role of prosecutor over Clinton emails. There is no indication at all that the Deputy AG is anything but a career prosecutor with impeccable credentials and no political motives. His memo was cited by reliable sources as being the driving force behind the firing and his criticism was not about Russia. He is running the investigation into Russian influence. His loss of confidence in Comey wasn't over Russia and he is the about the only person that would know Comeys involvement with Russian investigations. --DHeyward (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There are sources. All over the place

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comey-had-requested-more-money-for-fbi-s-russia-investigation-before-being-fired-u-s-official-1494433061
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/how-trump-decided-to-fire-james-comey.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.4f439b9f4053
• http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-loyalty-238239Casprings (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, additionally, the WP is now reporting that the Deputy AG is threatening to resign if the White House continues the claim that the impetus for this action came from him. Seems clear he was told to put together a case against Comey and told to do so by the President. Multiple RS's reporting the same.Casprings (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have trimmed all but a bare mention from the lede. There was way too much detail that was completely unrelated to the subject of this article - although it is all repeated in the text. I also reorganized the text section, which showed the natural disorganization resulting from many people making edits unrelated to each other. I didn't remove anything from the text, just made it flow better. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I don't have time to follow up on this point, but the White House has been dramatically changing its rationale for the firing (after news organizations pointed out that firing him at this particular moment because of Clinton's emails made no sense; that was months ago, and the matter is still under investigation at DOJ). That's why I described the Clinton connection as "the initial reason given" by the White House. I invite others to add sourced material about the revised rationales they have suggested in the past 24 hours. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comey had to revise his testimony after he made false statements about Abedin's emails. That was the news just prior to the firing. The Deputy AG that authored the memo critical of Comey's handling of the emails wasn't confirmed until about 2 weeks ago. The timeline fits AAG start date, Comey's Abedin testimony. Clinton blasted Comey just last week. The timing is what it is. Comey has already commented and says to move on as he supports the Presidents authority to fire the FBI director at any time for any reason or no reason. All of this is just rash speculation with all the politicians spinning. The only thing new is Trump is so abrupt that he doesn't give the politicians time to flip-flop properly and they've contradicting themselves at record rates. Not a single one though Tomey did a good job, though. We shouldn't be rearranging the heads on pikes just because it serves a POV. --DHeyward (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice spin. Let's follow the sources instead. Geogene (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to a story in The Atlantic about how Comey had misstated or misunderstood a key point in the email story. It seems the sources support what User:DHeyward was saying. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If Trump didn't have such a political tin ear, the revision in testimony showed Comey lacked the technical grasp of how Abedin's emails ended up on Weiner's laptop. It was about to set off a democrat implosion as he clearly misunderstood the reasoning for reopening the case in October. These statements were a fundamental lack of knowledge. --DHeyward (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it needs to be more then a bare mention. I think if it is a sentence, it needs to be "Comey was fired by Trump on May 9, 2017 and multiple sources report that the impetus was the ongoing investigation of collision between Trump's campaign and Russia."Casprings (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with that wording, and I doubt if you can support it with sources. You could probably support "suggested" or "suspected", but not "reported" as if it were a proven fact. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You would have to add the phrasing "one of the impetuses", but it is directly supported. The Washington Post reasons reported are: "Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.". Casprings (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll need better. The wiretap thing, the press leaks thing, and the Russia investigation. Not very strong support for a claim of direct causation. --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the much shortened version as of now is better in terms of weight for the lead, but it still ends up reading as hinting at direct causation, especially with the "However, ..". As for sourcing, press speculation is very definitely not good sourcing for this kind of content. As pointed out, there is no clear evidence that Comey was fired for this reason, let alone simply for this reason. It may well have been a factor, among many other things, but we simply don't know. Nor do most of the journalists writing about it or politicians commenting on it. As ever, there seems an ongoing determination here to use this page as a charge sheet, or to "prove" interference and collusion, with RS policy being misused to shovel in and prioritise content based on sources that happen to agree with that viewpoint and to question anything which departs from that narrative. N-HH talk/edits 08:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I ditched the "however" to address your concern. — JFG ^talk 08:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, this is coming closer to home. Sources are now linking Comey's firing directly to the Russia investigation. I just added to the article 1) a White House comment saying they hoped this firing would help bring the investigation to an end, and 2) an opinion from multiple FBI agents that they believe he was fired because he wouldn't shut down the investigation and in fact was intensifying it. With this kind of direct connection to the subject of this article, we probably do need more about the firing in the lede. And I say that as the person who just yesterday ago stripped out most of the detail about the firing from the lede. Most of that stuff was not directly related to the subject of this article. This new stuff is. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Goodin redux

In the Ars Technica source [56] being debated above, Goodin makes two interesting observations. One is that the government's report on the North Korea Sony hacks was criticized on the same grounds, and two, that it was "likely" that the reason the report was light on evidence was because the intelligence community doesn't want to teach the Russians how to evade detection. Last two paragraphs. So it's not an accurate representation of the source to throw in a quote from Goodin that says "no evidence!" [57] and leave it at that. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to include Goodin's analysis (and so far, there is no consensus to do so), we should summarize his key points rather than quote the entire lede.- MrX 01:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If the consensus is to include, of course. But Undue isn't the only issue with the current version. Geogene (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly.- MrX 01:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, so why is this being added back in? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously because of our policy that says that content cant't be removed unless there is consensus to remove it.- MrX 12:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've copy edited the material to properly summarize the source. That should not be interpreted as an endorsement for keeping any of the Goodin material per my previous comments.- MrX 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't a better summary of the source. It took one very minor element of Goodin's article, and then prefaced it with a suggestive wording that's not at all appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article ("while acknowledging that ..." suggests that what follows is true, even though we don't know if it is). I've restored the previous summary of Goodin's article. The above discussion suggests that there is overall support for quoting Goodin's article. Before changing this passage (and I don't see why it should be changed), propose the changes you'd like to make, and see if there's consensus for them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation

Grand jury issued subpoenas. I think this along with the firing seem like they are pretty historic. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is blockbuster if confirmed. But I think we need a little confirmation, maybe a second independent source. Grand jury proceedings are usually secret, and this story is sourced only to "people familiar with the matter". --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN: CBS News is now independently confirming it, see here. Neutrality^talk 05:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I would rather wait till they are issued. I am always distrustful of "This bloke I met down the Whitehouse arms" type "confirmations".Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oval Office meeting RE: national security risk

Odd overnight news, not sure how or where it fits here: [58] [59] [60]. SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As the election is over not at all. This is a different issue now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Still in the area of ramifications of their efforts.Casprings (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Really goofy. But, I don't think it improves the article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[61] -- At least one White House insider is quoted as saying it's more "terrifying" than "goofy" -- we need to see more RS reporting on this. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Cornell and Georgetown University professors quoted on the seriousness of the national security risk of the Trump administration apparently letting Russian government bring electronic devices into oval office. Here: [62]. Former Deputy Director of the CIA and a former KGB spy's comments also were also reported. Trump staff claimed to have been "tricked."[63] [64] [65].

This is being widely discussed in the mainstream media and it appears increasingly significant to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 11:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reports indicate that a White House official photographer was present as well as the official Russian photographer. Amusing anecdote for the ongoing spy story but this is certainly not related to election interference. WP:KITCHENSINK? — JFG ^talk 14:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Weasel again. What reports? RS please? The POTUS slipping highest security access to the Russians is not kitchen sink. And that is not my opinion, because I have no particular interest in the Americans. But this is receiving huge ongoing coverage including coverage of real accredited experts, not the "consultant pundit" and blogmeister types. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the description "amusing anecdote". It is not part of this story (Russian interference in the election). And it is not receiving "huge ongoing coverage", at least not in mainstream/neutral sources. It was a best a one-time sidebar. Reflective, perhaps, of Trump's ongoing eagerness to be pals with the Russians, but that is not (at this time) part of this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just grabbed a few quick RS discussions, but apparently if JFG is seeing revisionist accounts of the matter it must be receiving ongoing attention both from the White House and from the mainstream press accounts JFG has seen. According to the links I found, the possibility of a Russian surveillance device in the Oval Office is a big deal. Why is the appearance that US officials may be facilitating ongoing Russian interference in the US any less relevant than the long list of other follow-up events that we have included in the article?

Its not, it's just a different issue. related maybe (in the same way say Ww1 and Ww2 are related) but not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with JFG - this isn't related to the 2016 election. It might belong in Russian espionage in the United States. Burley22 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Now it finally all makes sense: Russian intelligence services worked very hard to get Trump elected, so that they could plant a microphone in the Oval Office and listen to him fuming at CNN all day while Putin strokes his white cat. Bwahahahahaha!!! — JFG ^talk 18:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump-Russia timeline of events

I believe it would be helpful to augment this article with a detailed timeline of relevant events. See http://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/timeline-of-events for an example of such a timeline. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump literally just admitted he fired Comey because of Russia

Full interview here:http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pres-trump-s-extended-exclusive-interview-with-lester-holt-at-the-white-house-941854787582

I am sure news stories are coming.Casprings (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And there you go: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/333056-trump-made-up-russia-story-part-of-comey-firing Casprings (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Patience will out. WP:NOTNEWS Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Objective3000. See the related section below.- MrX 11:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I also agree, whilst telling it also may just be Trumps inability to engage brain before opening mouth But I also do not think that "Trump literally just admitted he fired Comey because of Russia" what he (literally) says is that it was a thing he was thinking about, not that it was the reason he fired him.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

literally.- MrX 11:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with this interpretation of his comment. Trump did not "literally just admit" he fired Comey because of Russia. Not even close. He was talking about the firing, and he mentioned the investigation in the same breath, but that is a long way from saying the investigation was the cause. He might just as well have been talking about the timing: "I know this looks bad with the investigation going on, but I'm not worried because that is a phony issue." See discussion below. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with that viewpoint. However, it is still noteworthy that when Trump explains this, his next sentence is about Russia and this occurs on the same day the White House Spokesman says that the firing would hopefully help bring the investigation to clousure. Moreover, this is support by WP:RS's. Let's use the needed wording, but I still believe that is notable.Casprings (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No it is OR, sure if an RS makes the link we might be able to say "according to X,Y,Z Donny's decision was seen as questionable" (or some such) we cannot say that this was the reason for the firing, only an accusation. Even then I am not sure this is all that note worthy, it rads just a bit too nudge nudge to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that's what multiple RS's are reporting. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-says-fbi-director-comey-told-him-three-times-he-wasnt-under-investigation-once-in-a-phone-call-initiated-by-the-president/2017/05/11/2b384c9a-3669-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpcomey-120pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.82f16e21d941 Reporting on this connection isn't hard to find.Casprings (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say "he fired Comey because of Russia".Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Did I say it said that. It says that: "President Trump on Thursday said he was thinking of “this Russia thing with Trump” when he decided to fire FBI Director James B. Comey, who had been leading the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.". That is what RS sources say, in general. Casprings (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I assumed you were using it to support your thread title as a text for inclusion. What wording are you asking to be included?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"What do we know about alleged links between Trump and Russia?"

These article are significant. The Guardian is an excellent RS, and they contain significant details.

• What do we know about alleged links between Trump and Russia?

Here's something I noticed:

"In April, the Guardian published a story revealing GCHQ’s role, under the headline “British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia”. On Monday, Clapper confirmed the report – an unusual move. Asked by Senator Dianne Feinstein whether the article were true, he said: “Yes, it is and it’s also quite sensitive … The specifics are quite sensitive.”

The linked article, which Clapper "confirmed" as "true" and having "quite sensitive" "specifics", is important too:

• British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia

References

BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You know I'm a liberal, but right now I wouldn't state as fact anything that comes from Clapper. Attribution should be required, as he is clearly not an unbiased source at this point. I'm not saying not to use interviews with him, but I wouldn't go overboard with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Attribution is the rule for opinions. Only uncontested facts (the sun sets in the west, etc.) don't get refs, and opinions do get attribution, especially if they are controversial. This has nothing to do with whether we actually use content from a RS. Of course we use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The article says we do not know anything, but quotes two controversial former intelligence officers whose previous statements have been questioned. TFD (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What we "know" is ultimately irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. That can easily be judged as OR. What we do "know" is what RS say, and we document what they report, without censorship. If they have a bias, we must, per NPOV, preserve that bias, unaffected by editorial bias or censorship.

What we know is what the article says and it says we don't know anything. Accurate reporting of sources is not OR, it's what we are supposed to do. TFD (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with last sentence. That's what I was driving at. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, even if some detail of their statements has been questioned, most of their statements have not been questioned, but instead confirmed, and they certainly know more than any of us or the public, and definitely more than the Trump people, because they are being kept in the dark as any suspects would be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed redundant ref. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Show a bit of respect for your fellow editor's work. I don't alter your comments, and you don't alter mine. Okay? These sources are potential content, so those refs may be helpful, even if you don't think so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Sorry I meant to move the refs to your comments so they weren’t always showing at the bottom of the section. I see that you did that. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Grahamboat, all's well. It also looks like someone else did it, and it looks better. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear, what I was referring to with my comment earlier was to mean that anything which Clapper says about the investigation, Trump or Russia should be carefully attributed, including claims of fact for which he would otherwise be considered a reliable primary source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• MjolnirPants, you also mentioned Clapper in relation to bias. We should expect everyone to have a bias, and that having a bias is not necessarily a bad thing in real life, and for Wikipedia's purposes, does not preclude using them. On the contrary. We want to document real, biased, opinions. We should just attribute them. No big deal and nothing unusual. He should not be treated any differently than anyone else (but if you were to put him up against Trump, he's obviously more honest and reliable). That goes without saying, so attribute both of them, as usual. We don't censor them or use them less because of any bias.

  NPOV is all about how editors must not alter biased sources and content. See my essay which goes in depth on this subject: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content.

  If we really keep context in mind, Clapper MUST be dishonest at times, especially when dealing with Trump. That's his job as an investigator. He has to keep his cards close to his body so he doesn't compromise the investigation. IOW, he is likely understating things. Today, when Clapper said there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, he's probably sitting with several strong pieces of evidence proving it, but is just stringing Trump along and giving him more rope to hang himself. Some day we'll find out what's on those alarming taped conversations between Trump's people and the Russians which caused foreign intelligence agencies to notify our intelligence agencies. It must have been serious. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: and anyone else reading my comments: I had a serious, ongoing brain fart. I had completely mixed up James Clapper and James Comey, leading me to be mistaken about what the sources were saying. I agree with you about Clapper and am striking my comments above (I still feel the same way about Comey, but as this isn't a case of Comey commenting on the investigation, those thoughts aren't applicable). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead

The last sentence of the lead is poorly worded and not a significant fact worthy of the lead. I think we can do better than highlight that the administration has once again bumbled its stories. I think this should be left out entirely:

The initial reason given for the dismissal had to do with Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, but later a White House spokesperson expressed the hope that firing Comey would help bring the Russia investigation to an end and Trump stated “When I decided [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”

Let's save this space in the lead for content of historical importance.- MrX 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The President stating he fired someone because of an ongoing investigation evolving his campaign seems pretty significant to me.Casprings (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

References

The President most certainly did not say that he fired Comey because of an ongoing investigation. He said “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’” - MrX 11:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this last part of the sentence should be removed. It is a stretch beyond the sources to claim he said he fired Comey because of the investigation. He didn't. He mentioned the investigation in the same breath as saying he fired Comey, that's all. But I do think there should be a sentence in the lede showing that people are now making an explicit connection between the firing and the subject of this article. Maybe we could restore the wording of that sentence the way it was before the Trump quote was added:

The initial reason given for the dismissal had to do with Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, but a later White House comment expressed the hope that firing Comey would help bring the Russia investigation to an end, and FBI insiders said they thought he had been terminated because of his refusal to end that investigation.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

We should let the hullabaloo calm down before summarizing the fundamental, potentially longstanding, information into the lead. Too early to judge. In the same interview, Trump also said he wanted the Russia investigation to be pursued until the FBI gets to the bottom of it, and quickly at that. What do we pick? His rambling "I said to myself…" has no encyclopedic value. People who expect to find a smoking gun naturally want the inquiry expanded, while Trump naturally wants it shortened. This can't go on forever either way. — JFG ^talk 14:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I don't think writing about how the administration continuously changes their story and lies to the public has any place in the lead of an article about Russian election interference. I assume that indictments will soon be handed down, followed by trials and long prison sentences. That's the type of material that belongs in the lead.- MrX 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If we don't have anything at all in the lede that shows people making an explicit connection between the firing and this investigation, it can lead to the question "why is the firing of Comey even mentioned in this article?" --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the article because WP:RS's connect it to the Russian story.. over and over again. Casprings (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine, how about: "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017, a move that was widely regarded as a controversial conflict of interest and potential obstruction of justice."?- MrX 15:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. And if you and others don't think it should be in the led, that's also cool. I think it should, but whatever. It just gets really questionable to me if it is pulled out of the article. That doesn't make sense to me, given the numbers of sources that connect the firing to Russia. Casprings (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MrX: No. POV and UNDUE, goes way beyond the main thrust of the reporting. Also not really relevant to this article, which is about the investigation, not about Trump. @Casprings: It is already in the article and will stay there. The discussion here is about whether it should also be in the last sentence of the lede. I think it should, as a fair representation of what is in the article and an indication of the connection between the firing and the subject of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that it does need to be there. I would also say some of the commentary from WP:RS's go to the point MrX said. I would think the language needs to be weakened, but it should provide some mention for why the firing is important to the article.Casprings (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can censor the POTUS because he sounds "rambling". I think this should be included but it needs to be stated in more specific terms with some attribution, e.g. "press accounts and public opinion polling indicated that..." or something. The article needs to provide a clear exposition for a reader starting with no prior knowledge of the subject or the cast of characters. Editors also must avoid attributing motives to notable individuals based on our POV -- long vs. short inquiry, e.g. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to including Trump's ramblings on the body of the article, but such quotes don't belong in the lead, when general summary will better inform readers.- MrX 16:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MelanieN: Do you object to the entire sentence, or just the 'obstruction of justice part'? You suggested that "there should be a sentence in the lede showing that people are now making an explicit connection between the firing and the subject of this article." I think we should talk about why people are making the connection between the subject and the firing, rather than detail about inconsistent explanations from the administration. - MrX 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I object to the "obstruction of justice" part. That is about Trump and possible vulnerabilities on his part; it has nothing to do with the Russia investigation which is the subject of this article. Maybe we can come up with a new sentence that does not put words in anybody's mouth or attempt to interpret a typically hard-to-parse comment from Trump, but just gets across the fact that many people are making the connection (who and how being expanded on in the text). How about "While various reasons were given for the firing, many sources including some from the White House itself suggested that it was related to the Russia investigation." That doesn't necessarily mean Trump; some of his surrogates openly hinted at a connection, and some anonymous administration sources said it outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with leaving off the obstruction of justice part. I think your proposed wording would work, allowing for tweaks as more information is reported.- MrX 18:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that POTUS' statements do not have to be in the lede. The trick -- this comes up a lot with this subject matter -- is to find brief but accurate summaries that do not omit content or context. If he blurted out an alternative narrative for his decision to fire Comey it's no less credible as a blurt, and it's pure ABOUTSELF on the key point, not hubbledyhoo or blog chatter. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep it short and factual in the lead, following MrX's proposal and MelanieN's comments: "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017, a move that was criticized as an attempt to curtail the FBI investigation." (pick one of the gazillion sources making that case) — JFG ^talk 18:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's really good. Thanks JFG.- MrX 18:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine except for the weasel "criticised" -- and note it's not even the more informative weasel "widely criticised". And we do not ask readers to go pick their own sources. This isn't a roadside peachpick. If it's widespread, we should say so with a source and widespread among whom? SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I picked an appropriate source from the article body, titled "Donald Trump fired James Comey because 'he refused to end Russia investigation', say multiple FBI insiders". — JFG ^talk 19:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done.[66] — JFG ^talk 19:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The text @JFG: has added to the article does not reflect consensus here and I'm surprised to see it "done" while there's an ongoing discussion as to the clarity of what I feel is a clear example of a weasel participle. Please undo your premature insertion and let's work this through. There are other editors who have not commented on MrX's suggestion yet. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the text. — JFG ^talk 19:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SPECIFICO: Could we please see your proposed version? I don't quite understand your objection to using the verb 'critisized'. Do you have a better word to describe the backlash?- MrX 19:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticized by whom, how widely, according to which authority that tells us it is widely criticised. Your version could also in a few words indicate the reporting that this view "criticized" is not based on personal opinion but on Trump's own statement on the tube. Also, we really do need to wait a few hours for others such as @Casprings: who may not spend all day on the computer, to contribute to the consensus. And I don't think adding back a version in the middle of a converging but as yet unresolved discussion, is constructive. I have an evening engagement, but I will give it some thought per your request. Meanwhile it's pointless to rush a significant revision into the article in the middle of a discussion. It's great that you and JFG agreed on this proposal, but let's wait until the other 34 editors here might have a look. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

OK.- MrX 19:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable and succinct phrasing. Support. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the word widely should be addedCasprings (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support that.- MrX 15:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This would better conclude the lede text, while leaving details to the corpus of the article. "In a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the investigation, Trump fired Comey as head of the FBI on May 9, 2017." SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support that as well.- MrX 17:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Interfered in" the elections?

The very first sentence of this article, as well as the title and subsequent content, make a claim that seems to be sourced from media sources rather than the direct source: the actual Intelligence report. The actual report cited by those media sources and this article does not say that that Russia "interfered in" the elections. Shouldn't the title and lead sentence reflect what the actual report said (ie "influence campaign"), instead of what media sources said? The "interfered in" claim should be attributed only to media sources, not a report that makes no such claim. Intelligent readers understand the difference between "interference" and "influence", as well as the difference between "election" and "campaign", even if many journalists don't (or pretend not to). Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We are required to first cite secondary sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Eyes Cryin: Welcome to this article… Yes, what the intelligence reports actually say differs from what media sources and politicians have been peddling. What security analysts actually say differs from what scaremongering pundits are pushing. C'est la vie… — JFG ^talk 07:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

...Which is the second article ever edited by that account (btw, that's one of my favorite songs).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Eyes Cryin: it is also the case that not all major media agree that Russia "interfered" in the election either, as I showed above for Reuters and the BBC. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not true, as explained above. How many times are you going to try to pull these stunts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)