Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Russian trolls: hundreds or thousands

Our lead section says that the Russians created "hundreds" of social media accounts. Should this be "thousands" or even "tens of thousands?" I'm not up on all the details of this. Although I see Mueller's indictment of the IRA only referred to "hundreds" of accounts, Twitter has identified Russian troll accounts in multiple batches, each one numbering in the thousands. E.g.: 3,184 in January 2018, 3,841 in October 2018. R2 (bleep) 22:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead refers to the Internet Research Agency "troll farm" as a "main component" according to the intelligence community, but the lead is remiss in discussing what we have learned since then, which is that thousands of fake accounts (not necessarily thousands of "trolls", or people) created ads and posted memes on social media. In other words, thousands of accounts were apparently controlled by relatively few people.- MrX 🖋 12:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

How do we phrase and source this? The lead is misleading, suggesting that Russians created only "hundreds" of fake accounts. R2 (bleep) 17:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Mueller's indictments are reliable and traceable to real individuals. The thousands of accounts flagged by Twitter or advocacy groups cannot be traced to Russia. Surely if Twitter sent those lists to Mueller's team, they would dissect every trace, so they may yet publish new indictments. In the meantime, "hundreds" is all we can work from. — JFG ^talk 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. Twitter said these accounts were traced to Russian trolling activity. The Twitter statements are no less reliable than Mueller and are more up to date. And regardless of how we treat the sources, the lead is misleading. R2 (bleep) 01:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's see what Twitter stated: Twitter now says it has identified 3,184 accounts run by the Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency, up from 1,062. Those accounts posted 175,993 Tweets, about 8.4% of which were election-related, Twitter said. That gives us about 14,800 tweets about the election. For perspective, Twitter processes 8,400 tweets per second on average,[1] and the 2016 election was the subject of more than a billion tweets.[2][3] The "Russian troll" share was therefore worth 2 seconds of global traffic, or 0.0000015% of election-related tweets, e.g. pathetically negligible. If the lead is misleading, it seems to me it misleads in the wrong direction, by making a big deal of a negligible contribution to election chatter. We could certainly mention a scary number of accounts like "tens of thousands", but then we should add an equally unscary number such as proportion of election coverage. Of course, setting the tweets themselves aside, the non-stop media coverage of the Russian interference operation has made it succeed beyond Putin's wildest dreams! — JFG ^talk 08:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting that you would introduce original research to try to minimize the impact of fake accounts controlled by Russian operatives on social media. According to sources, IRA alone were responsible for "187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared with 76.5 million engagements on Facebook"[4]. The trolls "bragged about creating thousands of fake social media accounts"[5]. The Federal indictment mentions hundreds of social media accounts[6].Did Putin's trolls have an impact? Probably [7][8]. The number of fake social media accounts is not the most important part of the story. In my opinion, the number of posts, the number of engagements, the extent of the activity across multiple social media platforms, the real world impact, and the fact that it's still ongoing are the important points.- MrX 🖋 12:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not minimizing what IRA agents or other fake accounts have done, but rather it's the U.S. political-media-judicial class that has maximized their impact. Funny how that worked splendidly to "undermine democracy" in the country. To your engagement figures: again, what's the proportion? Facebook users generate 4.5 billion "likes" every day,[9], so those 76.5 million, spread over let's say two years of campaigning, represent 1 like in 43,000, or 0.002%. That's the perspective that is often missing when discussing the Big Russia Scare. — JFG ^talk 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources conclude that the proportion of engagements to total system-wide engagements is important, I'm sure they will report on it. I'm afraid I don't know what the "U.S. political-media-judicial class" is. Is it something like Eisenhower's Military-industrial complex or is it just a sly way to try to discredit reliable sources?- MrX 🖋 17:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither: it simply means that politicians, media figures and law enforcement have spent a great deal of time and resources whipping up the Russian interference affair, in my opinion giving it much more clout than it deserved. — JFG ^talk 09:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but: Russia-linked Facebook ads during last year’s U.S. presidential election mainly focussed on the states of Michigan and Wisconsin. The ads targeted key demographic groups and used divisive messages including promoting anti-Muslim sentiment. Wisconsin and Michigan were among the handful of battleground states that helped Trump win the presidency over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Trump carried Wisconsin by 22,748 votes and Michigan by 10,700 votes. and Manafort gave Kilimnik internal Trump campaign polling data. soibangla (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This is all quite beside the point. How much impact the social media trolling had or didn't have on the election is all quite irrelevant. This page, and the lead, are describing Russian interference in the election, and the social media trolling was part of that interference. We're obligated to describe it accurately. I consider JFG's complaint about how little impact they believe it had on the election to be little more than a non sequitur, and arguably WP:NOTFORUM. If they're suggesting that we omit all mention from the social media trolling from the lead, then that's a separate discussion, and I wish them good luck on that. But to use that line of reasoning to argue that we should say that the Russians used only hundreds of accounts, when in that they used thousands, is borderline absurd in my view, and certainly has no grounding in our core policies. R2 (bleep) 22:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Setting aside JFG's personal reflections, the impact of the social media campaigns are arguably more relevant than the effort—a fact that I think is borne out by the more recent source articles. There is no unanimity among sources about whether there were thousands of fake accounts or hundreds. That is one reason why the other information is so important in order to give readers the proper context.- MrX 🖋 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, please do not put words in my mouth: the social media operation must be documented in the lead, as well as its impact. I have changed the number of accounts to "thousands" because that is well sourced. If we're going to mention the impact of their tweets, then it should be qualified compared to the overall tweeting activity related to the campaign. Ditto if we're going to mention the dollar amounts of media investment, which I believe was around $100,000 for the Russians vs around $1,000,000,000 for the American campaigns. In addition, Russia also obtained a lot of free media coverage, however mostly after the election was over. — JFG ^talk 09:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless those comparisons have been covered in reliable sources, we will not be including them because original research and speculation are not permitted in articles. This has been pointed out before in this discussion.- MrX 🖋 10:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. — JFG ^talk 11:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I had thought you were citing the low impact of the tweets as a basis for an objection to changing "hundreds" to "thousands." Sorry for the misunderstanding. R2 (bleep) 15:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Putin's involvement

Regarding this addition reverted by JFG... don't we have reliable sources saying that Putin himself ordered the Russian interference efforts? If not, what do the sources say about his involvement, and should it be made more prominent in the lead section? Right now the lead basically says nothing about Putin's involvement. I suspect this issue got lost in the cracks when we rewrote the lead. R2 (bleep) 15:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

At a minimum we have tons of sources saying that the DNI report declassified in January 2017 concluded that Putin personally ordered the influence campaign. R2 (bleep) 16:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct. And since I've been watching this affair I have never seen anything else than the bare assertion from US intelligence sources. Not enough to claim as fact. Meanwhile Mueller has been digging into the (mis)deeds of people who were actually involved in election interference, so I'm eagerly waiting to see if his report asserts that any of those people took orders from Putin. — JFG ^talk 16:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into Mueller's silence about Putin in the indictment of the Russians. Publicly implicating a foreign head of state would have disrupted foreign relations and I'm sure isn't something law enforcement would do unless absolutely necessary. On top of that, all of the sources cite the DNI very favorably. I have managed to find a couple of sources that support saying that Putin personally ordered the interference without atribution, the best of which is NPR. In any case, if we don't have consensus for including this content without attribution, then I propose we include it with attribution. R2 (bleep) 16:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's CNN: [10] Putin ordered a multifaceted influence campaign that included spreading pro-Trump propaganda online and hacking the DNC and Podesta. R2 (bleep) 16:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

We'll see what Mueller says; surely being "diplomatic" about Putin does not seem to be a priority of U.S. politicians or media commentators, but I agree with you that perhaps law enforcement officials would be more cautious. The CNN piece you quote merely relays the phrasing of accusations by U.S. intelligence in the ODNI report, as properly attributed in the previous sentence. Again, the striking point is that nothing new has surfaced despite 2+ years of scrutiny. I can't read the NPR source, as their server returns an error; perhaps you are more lucky with them. In any case, Putin's "orders" are already attributed to U.S. intelligence in the body, and I maintain there is insufficient evidence to make this claim in the lead. — JFG ^talk 06:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course Putin ordered the interference.[11] We are not waiting for more information to be revealed by Mueller. Mueller is not investigating Putin. That said, sources generally do not report Putin's role with certainty, so we need to attribute it to the DNI, and others who have asserted it as fact.- MrX 🖋 12:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course Putin ordered the interference. That New York Times summary of events only includes speculation about Putin's supposed motives to intervene in U.S. elections as some kind of payback for purported U.S. intervention in Russian elections, or because Trump said he was a strong leader, while Putin said Trump was a strong candidate. No facts there. — JFG ^talk 20:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Right now, all there is is the assertion of American intelligence agencies. Wikipedia should not state the claims of any country's intelligence agencies as if they were fact. We all know that such agencies are not only fallible, but also don't have the best record of honesty, to put it lightly. As it is, the article states something as a fact that is not actually publicly known to be true. It looks very bad for the encyclopedia, which is supposed to go on verifiability, and I hope enough editors will decide to do what is right for the credibility of Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed there is no consensus to state that Putin ordered the operation, especially not in wikivoice. Reverted until further discussion occurs. — JFG ^talk 08:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've restored the content to the lead section with in-text attribution as I don't think I see an objection to that version being included. R2 (bleep) 15:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Attribution is fine. I have placed the statement in the first paragraph, where it follows directly our mention of various intelligence reports. — JFG ^talk 08:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

How to attribute

I think saying "U.S. intelligence officials have stated..." misleads and understates the fact that this was a formal conclusion by multiple intelligence agencies. "U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded..." is more accurate and neutral. "U.S. intelligence officials have stated..." is the type of attribution we use when a handful of anonymous intelligence officials leak something to the press, as they did in December 2016. But then the ODNI report was publicly released in January 2017, and it said pretty emphatically that Putin's involvement was a formal conclusion. The huge number of reliable sources that covered the report used attribution language at least as endorsing as "U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded..." Most used the even more positive "according to" language. R2 (bleep) 22:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "have stated" is weasel language suggesting "some say, but others know better." The IC has affirmed and reaffirmed their consensus in 2017 and 2018. soibangla (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree: "stated" is a more neutral wording than "concluded", there's nothing weasely about it; in fact WP:WEASEL / WP:SAID strongly favors using simple words such as "stated", "said" or "wrote" when attributing a statement. Wikipedia should not blindly parrot the ODNI's wording. — JFG ^talk 15:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

How about using "according to," as many reliable sources have? R2 (bleep) 16:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

How would that sound? According to U.S. intelligence officials, the operation was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Or shorter without "officials"? According to U.S. intelligence, the operation was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin. — JFG ^talk 16:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think either of those are fine, but the first is clearer.- MrX 🖋 17:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Close... but it should be "U.S. intelligence agencies" or "the U.S. Intelligence Community." R2 (bleep) 17:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(By the way I started a discussion at Talk:United States Intelligence Community over whether we should decapitalize "Intelligence Community." R2 (bleep) 17:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ODNI refers to conclusions in paragraph three. The IC concluded. Let's go with that. soibangla (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, the United States Intelligence Community (caps, since we're referring to official pronouncements from the very top) "concluded", not just "stated". A "statement" is very vague, whereas a "conclusion" is based on careful analysis of evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support According to U.S. intelligence officials, the operation was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin as proposed by JFG and endorsed by MrX, or would support the modification proposed by Ahrtoodeetoo, According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

I don't support the use of the term "United States Intelligence Community" however, because that is a very broad camp, and individuals within those agencies — who comprise the community — may have diverse opinions that are not reflected in official statements. -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That's inconsistent with the reliable sources... however... I think we have consensus for According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin? R2 (bleep) 20:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

Paragraphs 2 - 5 in the introduction need citations (see below).

Paragraph 1 of "Cyber Attack on Democrats" needs citation (see below).

Key elements of the narrative presented in this article (e.g. the GRU penetrated computer systems of the DNC) need stronger evidence to substantiate the claims. Citations provided later in the article are not strong evidence (citation points to an article that does not mention the GRU). If sufficient evidence cannot be provided, these claims should be prefaced by "it is alleged" (e.g it is alleged the GRU penetrated computer systems of the DNC).

CITATIONS NEEDED: The clandestine influence campaign involved the Internet Research Agency "troll farm" creating thousands of social media accounts that impersonated Americans supporting radical groups, planning and promoting rallies, and reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017 . According to criminal indictments by the Special Counsel, those messages and activities "spread distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general", for example by discouraging African Americans from voting or by motivating conservative voters wary of Trump .

Additionally, hackers affiliated with the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) penetrated computer systems of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Clinton campaign officials, notably chairman John Podesta . Tens of thousands of private emails and attachments were released to the public during the final months of the campaign, via DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks . The exposed information revealed internal bias against Clinton's primary challenger Bernie Sanders, which led to the resignation of the DNC chair and lukewarm backing of Clinton by Sanders supporters . Russian government officials have repeatedly denied involvement in any DNC hacks or leaks . Russia-connected individuals also communicated with various Trump campaign associates, offering damaging information on Clinton or business opportunities .

The Russian interference activities triggered strong statements from American intelligence agencies, a direct warning by then-U.S. president Barack Obama to Russian president Vladimir Putin, renewed sanctions against Russia, closures of Russian diplomatic facilities and expulsion of their staff. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees have held several hearings.

The FBI and Special Counsel conducted investigations resulting in indictments of twenty-six Russian agents and three Russian organizations . The Special Counsel also has been investigating links between Russia and Trump associates, which has resulted in indictments of Rick Gates and Roger Stone, and convictions of Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, W. Samuel Patten, and Michael Cohen. Trump has called the interference a "hoax", contending it was an excuse by Democrats for losing the election. He dismissed FBI Director James Comey over the issue .

Starting in March 2016, the Russian military intelligence agency GRU sent “spearphishing” emails targeted more than 300 individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party or the Clinton campaign, according to the Special Counsel's 13 July 2018 Indictment . Reemtube777 (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

These sentences are in the article's lead section. The lead does not need citations; it repeats material which is detailed, and cited, in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Russian disinformation on Wikipedia

Is anyone aware of any past or current discussions about Russians potentially engaging in government-sponsored disinformation on Wikipedia? R2 (bleep) 18:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There have been various aspersions cast as various editors (including yours truly). See WP:AE archives for fun. I'm not aware of any actual Russians pushing an agenda here; occasional vandals are quickly reverted, as they should. — JFG ^talk 23:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean accusations pointed at specific editors. I'm thinking more of Village Pump-type discussions about the problem more generally. After all, we know Russian disinformation is on all major social media platforms, so why wouldn't it be on Wikipedia? I'm not the only one thinking about this. And Russia has been caught doing this at least once, though in a ham-handed way in 2014. R2 (bleep) 08:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure, if you mean Russian Wikipedia. Do they even have their version of this page, aka "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections", although it is directly about Russia? Of course not. My very best wishes (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually referring to potential efforts to deceive Americans, so I'm referring to English Wikipedia primarily. R2 (bleep) 17:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

While you're at it, why not discuss possible American disinformation campaigns? This page, however, would not be the appropriate venue for any such discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I just addressed a pattern of changes that suggested to me either deep confusion or intentional misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I have long suspected that certain editors are either foreign disinformation agents or paid propagandists.Phmoreno (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Public disclosure of e-mails and attachments

"Tens of thousands of private emails and attachments were released to the public" - isn't America one of those countries where public officials emails are public record anyway? So these should have been made available, but weren't? I know in my country every single correspondence sent by a public official is public record and open to examination by the public, so stuff like this doesn't seem important and it makes it seem like the GRU were acting in the best interests of the American public for transparency against public officials refusing to release documents to the eyes of us foreign citizens. Maybe better clarification is needed as to why this is a bad thing. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Do those countries also release recordings of all phone calls by government officials? Are all private conversations with advisers and campaign workers released? O3000 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

These were not emails from or involving public officials. They were from the Democratic National Committee and from private citizens involved with the Clinton campaign. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's laughable that in any country (including Australia, where 121.210.33.50 purportedly is from), political parties and people running for public office would be required to disclose confidential e-mails to the other side while the election was pending, or that a third party like the GRU was doing something good by disclosing them. Hopefully 121.210.33.50 just misunderstood. R2 (bleep) 17:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Report

Farcaster reverted my edit that the Mueller investigation "found that there was no evidence of collusion or conspiracy" with the comment, "That's not what the investigation concluded. There was evidence, simply not enough to convict."

The actual wording of Attorney General Bill Barr's summary of the Mueller findings was:

The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans — including individuals associated with the Trump campaign — joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”[12]

There is no mention of evidence insufficient to convict. In fact the requirement for indictment is not sufficient evidence to convict but "probable cause." It is up to a jury to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict.

In any case, the reliable secondary source (an article in The Guardian) says, "Special counsel Robert Mueller found that neither Donald Trump nor any of his aides colluded with Russia during the 2016 election, according to a letter delivered to Congress on Sunday by the US attorney general."[13]

No doubt some people will never accept the report's conclusions, just as some people still doubt Obama was born in the U. S. But we need to reflect what sources say. And the fact that no collucion or conspiracy was found is of great significance to this article.

TFD (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You are correct on the evidence point, but sources (including The Guardian) are attributing the "finding" to Barrs's summary of Mueller's report.[14][15][16][17] For that reason, we cannot proclaim it in Wikipedia's voice. It has to be attributed.- MrX 🖋 12:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I re-phrased it yet again.[18] There was nothing stopping you by the way from changing the wording. TFD (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Farcaster was correct. Neither the letter nor the cited source said there was no evidence of collusion or coordination. It merely said Mueller did not find there was collusion or coordination. This is an important distinction, and wasn't addressed by TFD's most recent adjustment. I changed the wording accordingly. R2 (bleep) 18:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And FWIW here's a Lawfare article that goes into depth on this issue and suggests that some news stories may have overstated Barr's letter. R2 (bleep) 18:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's an article by an Obama official criticizing the New York Times and other mainstream sources, considered reliable, as wrong. But in any case, his article does not make sense. The NYT did not claim that Mueller found there was no conspiracy but merely there was no evidence of one. One cannot prove a negative. TFD (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Barr letter doesn't say anything about evidence. R2 (bleep) 15:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Barr report says "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." But "did not find collusion" is a different thing from "found there was no collusion". I'm surprised at the Guardian misinterpreting the letter so badly. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, there's been a lot of that going on these last few days. The supposedly left-wing New York Times has also been an offender in this regard. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I third that. And some otherwise reliable outlets have gone even further, saying that Barr's letter said Mueller found no evidence of collusion, which is most definitely not true. Very troubling. R2 (bleep) 17:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's quibbling over phrasing. The fact someone was in New York City when a murder occurred may form part of the evidence that they committed the murder and disproving this evidence could absolve them. It would still be fair to say that there was no evidence against some innocent person who happened to be in NYC that day. TFD (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Without access to the evidence we have no basis for determining whether that analogy is applicable, and neither do these media outlets. R2 (bleep) 22:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Can we finally call this subject a conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.132.141.53 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There are MANY false claims and poorly sourced articles which have no primary sources. Russiagate is a conspiracy theory as proven by the Mueller Report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.24.31.179 (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Russian interference is not a conspiracy. Russia actively attempted to interfere with the election, and it's been documented by many. What is, at this point, a conspiracy theory is that the Trump campaign willingly cooperated with Russia's attempts. That theory has now been conclusively debunked by Mueller's investigation, at least according to the summary of the report delivered by Attorney General Barr. It will probably take a little bit more time, and more releases from Mueller's report, to provide the data to back the claim up. John Brennan, former CIA director, who was a big proponent of the conspiracy theory and made appearances all over cable news claiming Trump and his campaign willingly conspired with Russia, recently stated on MSNBC's Morning Joe that "I don't know if I received bad information but I suspected there was more than there actually was. I am relieved that it's been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy." Mr Ernie (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it the Muller report does say there was interference, and the AG has said that the report does not exonerate Donnie. Thus the interference is not a conspiracy theory (it has been proven, and there have even been charges).Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No he says there was no collusion at all he just says he doesn't exonerate the president from obstruction which AG Barr says there is no evidence of. SCAH (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the letter did not say there was no collusion. It said Mueller did not find there was collusion. There's a huge difference between the two. For all we know, Mueller might have found a preponderance of evidence of collusion, but not enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We just don't know yet. And no one is labeling anything a conspiracy theory until reliable sources do. R2 (bleep) 15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The title is Russian INTERFERENCE, not Russian COLLUSION. So, no. DN (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• To the first two commenters: can we finally stop using proxy servers? R2 (bleep) 15:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh?? The Mueller report does the opposite: it CONFIRMS the Russian interference which is the subject of this article. According to Barr, "The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts." It details two ways in which the Russians did this: “disinformation and social media operations" and "computer hacking designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election." It also points out that many Russians were indicted for their activities in this area. For anyone who has claimed that the Russia interference is a hoax, the Mueller report definitively shows that it was real. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, the Barr letter has emboldened some to leave the safety of their right-wing echo chamber to try to turn us into Conservapedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Noting the sudden influx of brand-new users here who somehow know how to go to a talk page, start new sections, tag for references, etc., it makes me wonder if we ourselves are being the target of a Russian troll farm. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

yep that's always the answer blame the russians SCAH (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This was the biggest conspiracy theory, or better termed conspiracy fraud, in history. The sources I tried to use here were all ridiculed when it was the mainstream media who was completely wrong. There has been an abundance of anti-Trump conspiracy evidence for a long time, including numerous primary sources such as transcripts, but none of that was allowed here. This article is mostly anti-Trump propaganda- yes, no mention of the "media leak strategy". Do we mention the "insurance policy"? How about the Inspector General's investigation? There are too many problems with this article to keep it. Everything that is not proven about Russian interference should be removed, and some of the so called proven information will likely be found to be falsified.Phmoreno (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Does this article violate any of our policies or guidelines, and if so, how? R2 (bleep) 17:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Phmoreno, wow, lol. We're going to delete the article on Russian interference in the 2016 elections based on a three-and-a-half page letter by the U.S. AG that confirms that Russians interfered in the 2016 election? That comment takes the cake. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, it could be that. Or it could be alt-righters from Breitbart comment sections, 4chan, r/The_Donald, Daily Stormer, or whatever other right-wing rabbit hole. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that for the most part these folks are defending Russia, not Trump. R2 (bleep) 19:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

R2, what's the difference? Their symbiotic relationship often makes it hard to see any difference between defending Trump and defending Russia. Is there a specific difference you're thinking of? (See also. ) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that one is a violation of our policies and terms of service, while the other is not. If you want to discuss this further, a good place might be WT:Disinformation. R2 (bleep) 22:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Lets lay off the soaping.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's firmly resist the repeated attempts by IPs and editors to claim that allegations of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russians have been "conclusively debunked by Mueller's investigation". That's a very high bar (prove a negative), and that hasn't happened. There is evidence, but not enough for another high bar, which is "beyond a reasonable doubt". It has not been "debunked". The allegation just hasn't been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that's what's required in court and for a conclusion in the report. There is plenty of evidence indicating it happened, just not enough for court. See Swalwell's challenge for Trump to sue him. Swalwell refuses to back down from his claim that he saw "strong evidence of collusion." Interesting... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not. Clearly this is no longer more than a conspiracy theory by politically motivated partisans? Sarah777 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

...Says which source? R2 (bleep) 18:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Russian interference, which the report say happened, thus this is not a conspiracy theory.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The interference is nailed down. Only Trump and few few delusional individuals still deny it.

As far as the "collusion" allegations go, it's just not so simple a matter that "debunked" can be used. It's a matter of looking at the evidence. Many see the evidence as sufficient to justify claims of collusion. Others, looking at the same evidence, don't think it's enough to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold to hold up in court. (Others haven't seen the evidence, often because they live in the Fox "News" bubble which refuses to report it.) That leaves it as a difference of opinion that will likely remain unsettled. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We would need to show that it was called a conspiracy theory in reliable sources. We cannot make the call ourselves, since that violates synthesis. If of course it comes to be called a conspiracy in the future, then we can look at this again. TFD (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, and, in principle, that could happen. We usually reserve that type of title for theories with no accepted evidence. There seems to be plenty of evidence that the Russians did interfere in the election on several levels. That Trump refuses to condemn it is just something that should remain in the article, as it's a pretty significant and notable departure from what all sane sources say. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM R2 (bleep) 22:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If Swalwell had that evidence why didn't he turn it over to the Special Counsel? This guy has a duty to those who sent him to Washington to "put up or shut up." Mr Ernie (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC) He is not free to publicize classified information that he has seen. He and other Congressmen have made this same claim many times. It would be great if McConnell would allow us to see this evidence, but he is blocking the public release of Mueller's report and evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC) McConnell bears a huge load of blame for preventing everyone outside the Gang of Eight from knowing that there was credible evidence that the Russians were interfering in the election. He forced all the members of the Gang of Eight to remain silent while it was happening. In my book, that borders on treasonous behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC) BullRangifer, does Mueller not have a clearance? If Swalwell has evidence his duty was to provide it to the exact group who was specifically appointed to look for said evidence, not grandstand about it on tv. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC) How do we know Swalwell didn't hand over whatever evidence he had? Or maybe his evidence came from intelligence briefings. Either way, we don't know what evidence Mueller found or didn't find. The point is, we can't say "there was no evidence" or "there was insufficient evidence" or "there was sufficient evidence" or "it was a conspiracy theory" or "it wasn't a conspiracy theory." None of those things are verifiable. I agree with others, let's stick to our community standards and avoid the soapboxing and speculation. This isn't a discussion forum. R2 (bleep) 18:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Mr Ernie, yes, he has clearance, and they no doubt have seen the same pieces of evidence. Evidence of collusion and obstruction exist, but Mueller had to make a conclusion that could stand up in court, and based on all the evidence he could see, he evaluated it wasn't conclusive enough to meet the "no reasonable doubt" threshold. Evidence can exist, and people can evaluate it very differently. I suspect that's what we're seeing. Evidence can be absolutely irrefutable and beyond discussion, and it can be debatable. It's still evidence. We don't know which piece of the many pieces of evidence he's talking about, but Swalwell is sure enough that he has challenged Trump to sue him. If that happened, the discovery process would allow Swalwell to get even more information. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Mueller had to make a conclusion that could stand up in court, and based on all the evidence he could see, he evaluated it wasn't conclusive enough to meet the "no reasonable doubt" threshold. We don't know this. R2 (bleep) 22:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, it's always important to remember that Mueller and Barr view these matters through the lens of a federal court prosecution, a very high bar, and in the context that a sitting president can't be indicted anyway, rather than through the lens of impeachment, which is essentially a political process with a far lower bar. While Barr's letter addresses the core issues of collusion and obstruction in federal prosecution context, it says nothing about possible other issues (Mueller pursued several lines of investigation) which might have meaning in an impeachment context. soibangla (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC) If so, Mueller violated the order appointing him as special counsel. I expect next we'll be hearing that they got to him. TFD (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC) No, (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, which might include anything he serendipitously happens upon while, say, "following the money." "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets...We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia," said Don Jr. in 2008. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, but his primary responsibility was {i} a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemment's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Maybe he misread the letter and skipped to (ii). TFD (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick and friendly reminder regarding WP:NOTFORUM. Let's try to stay on topic. DN (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sanders in lead

Regarding this sentence in the lead:

The exposed information revealed internal bias against Clinton's primary challenger Bernie Sanders, which exacerbated tensions within the Democratic party, leading to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and reduced Democratic support for Clinton.

Is this too much emphasis on Democratic politics? Of course we want to summarize the effects of the interference, but the references to Sanders and Schultz seem to me like a bit of a distraction from the main point of the article, which is the Russian interference itself. I took a stab at summarizing this at a higher level but was reverted by SCAH. R2 (bleep) 18:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't see why we should suppress what the hack revealed, it gives context to the effect on the DNC and the race and it is only one line. SCAH (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is that it seems to be more about the DNC than about Russian interference. It also seems to overemphasize that particular impact of the interference at the expense of others. For example, the interference led to the Pizzagate and Seth Rich conspiracy theories, but those aren't mentioned in the lead. R2 (bleep) 18:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

And to be clear, no one is trying to suppress anything. This stuff is in the body and is also well covered in other articles. R2 (bleep) 18:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The information on the body calls it perceived bias. I don't think "revealed internal bias", as if bias were a fact, is neutral. Check the sourcing. Geogene (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's also, just coincidentally, disproportionate emphasis on the one aspect of Russian interference that could be spun to put Russia itself in the least negative light. You know, as if the GRU were just helping US democracy along. Geogene (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Geogene: The point of this article shouldn't be to try to spin Russia in a positive or negative light. What light this information puts Russia in should have no place in a discussion about whether or not to include it, and I'm troubled that you're raising that as a consideration. The central question is whether or not the internal bias within the DNC revealed by the leaks is WP:DUE, and how to phrase the issue neutrally. Given the impact that this information had on the DNC (the resignation of the DNC chair, for example), I think there's a strong argument to be made for one sentence in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The point of this article, Thucydides, is to cover things here exactly the same way that reliable sources do. Which, in this case, is not positive. That's the essence of the core neutrality policy, something that shouldn't trouble you at all. Geogene (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It certainly looks like you're suggesting leaving a particular piece of information out of the lede because it might, in your opinion, put Russia in "the least negative light." That's troubling to me. If your only point is that we should follow reliable sources, then that entire statement was unnecessary.

There was a lot of coverage during the 2016 campaign of DNC bias, as revealed by the emails Wikileaks published ([19] [20] [21]). The idea that this information, which was widely covered by reliable sources, might spin the issue in a less negative light for Russia isn't a valid objection. It sounds like a political test for inclusion of information in the article. That's precisely what I find troubling. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What it looks like is exactly what I have said that it is: a distraction that draws attention away from foreign interference onto normal domestic political differences. Followed by your apparently taking offense that anyone dare speak of the issue, which I'm just going to say right now, is a rhetorical stunt that serves no legitimate purpose. Geogene (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't take offense at anything you said. I said that it's troubling when political considerations are given as a justification for excluding information from the lede. The scandal caused by the DNC leak is the major way in which alleged Russian hacking affected the 2016 campaign. If we don't explain what that scandal was, readers are missing a major part of this story. I have two "legitimate purpose[s]" here: 1. To ask you to refrain from justifying content decisions with overtly political reasoning, 2. To point out that the DNC bias scandal was central to the subject of this article, and that there has been extensive coverage that ties it to the subject of this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A couple things. Drop the "alleged" Russian hacking. It happened, so we treat it as fact here. Also, there was no "DNC leak". It was a hack, and then leaked by the Russians using Wikileaks. Our rules here almost forbid we include copyrighted content that was leaked without authorization (we don't even link to the dossier), but just almost... . We do use what RS say about it, and that's the way it should be. Carry on.

You're very right that this Russian tactic worked well. They took something of minor importance and weaponized it so many people thought it was a bigger deal than it was, and it is still very effective. There are still MAGA people yelling "lock her up" (even though it wasn't Clinton's emails which were hacked and the Russians were the ones who committed the crime of hacking). They don't say the same about Jared, Ivanka, and Trump himself for doing much worse with their unsecured devices and careless way of dealing with classified stuff. The tactic still works as a distraction from that present danger. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to refrain from adhering to the neutrality policy, any more than you're likely to refrain from your ad hominem attacks. Anyway, it's already in the body, the question is whether it should be in the lead. Geogene (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just asking for the political justifications for excluding content to be dropped. That's it. I think I've made my point, and if other editors are comfortable with overtly political justifications for content decisions, then I can't really do anything further. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, like the "Public disclosure of e-mails and attachments" discussion above. It's odd how new editors seem to come up with the similar arguments on this page at roughly the same time. R2 (bleep) 18:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

So change the wording to perceived bias. Now it just looks idiotic "exacerbated tensions within the Democratic party, leading to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and reduced Democratic support for Clinton" how did it do so "Pizzagate and Seth Rich conspiracy theories" didn't lead to any of that only the perceived bias did. SCAH (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If there was no DNC hack there would have been no Seth Rich conspiracy theory (which was about the DNC hack). If there was no Podesta hack there would have been no Pizzagate (which arose from the hacked Podesta e-mails). R2 (bleep) 20:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok but it didn't lead to "the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and reduced Democratic support for Clinton" SCAH (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. R2 (bleep) 21:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you don't follow. The bias or perceived bias led to the resignation and reduced support not the 2 conspiracies. SCAH (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we had a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to suggest that the 2 conspiracies led to the resignation and reduced support. What I was saying is that the 2 conspiracies, the resignation, and the reduced support were all results of the interference. We should be wary of putting undue emphasis on some but not others. R2 (bleep) 21:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes but the resignation and reduced support are in the lede sentence so what led to that should be there not just edited out. If we keep "exacerbated tensions within the Democratic party, leading to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and reduced Democratic support for Clinton" we must add what about the hack led to that it wasn't the fact that they were hacked it was what the hack showed as for the 2 conspiracies that was from the fact that the hack happened or as for the seth conspiracy the fact that it didn't happen. SCAH (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It just doesn't seem sufficiently important to me in a 5-paragraph summary about the interference. More important in articles about the DNC, Schultz, or the Clinton and Sanders campaigns. R2 (bleep) 22:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

R2: no offense intended, but issue of Clinton's lost support is directly relevant to the election. The two conspiracy theories are tangential. No amount of special pleading can really justify the notion that what was hacked is irrelevant. -Darouet (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say what was hacked was irrelevant. No one is proposing removing the fact that the Russians obtained internal DNC e-mails. It's just a matter of how much detail we include in the lead about what was in the e-mails and the fallout of their disclosure. And to say the conspiracy theories were tangential is dubious. Relevant source: [22] R2 (bleep) 16:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, I get the reason you're skeptical of including this, but it might be important to keep to show what the Russian disinformation campaign achieved. I'm not sure yet about this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I definitely supported this in the body, and am on the fence about the lead. Let's reach a consensus before anyone touches that content anymore. Just let it lie there until then. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the original revert should stand per WP:BRD SCAH (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First US disclosure of interference

MelanieN, I believe you're mistaken about this edit to the lead regarding the first public disclosure of Russian interference by US intelligence agencies. Our body says: In a joint statement on October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressed confidence that Russia had interfered in the presidential election by stealing emails from politicians and U.S. groups and publicizing the information. This is sourced to The Guardian. R2 (bleep) 18:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, but I do have a related question: When was it that McConnell ordered the Gang of 8 to keep silent about what they knew about the interference (Obama was forced to stay quiet, too.)? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I don't know that they ever said when that happened, but I have interpreted it as September or October. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Can either of you please weigh in on my question? It should be easy to resolve. Just confirm that the Guardian source supports the statement that intelligence agencies first publicly disclosed the interference in October 2016. R2 (bleep) 20:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Guardian states that the ODNI report was the first official time the government publicly pointed the finger at Russia for interference. MelanieN's edit isn't all wrong, but just after it is the inaccurate "three months later." That needs reworking. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, R2 is correct. The Guardian article from October 2016 is titled "US officially accuses Russia of hacking DNC and interfering with election". There were several media outlets to which U.S. intelligence leaked such pronouncements at the time. @MelanieN: Would you self-revert? — JFG ^talk 23:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

On Sept. 22, two California Democrats — Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam B. Schiff — did what they couldn’t get the White House to do. They issued a statement making clear that they had learned from intelligence briefings that Russia was directing a campaign to undermine the election,..." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. I was thinking about the refusal, by congressional Republicans, to agree with an Obama administration suggestion that the information shoukd be released. I will self-revert Thanks for the correction. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL! We were thinking about the same thing. See my question above about McConnell and the Gang of Eight. When did that happen? Even Obama was forced to not say anything. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, the first leak was in September I believe, and the first public announcement was in October. The significance of the January report was the level of detail it provided, including Russian motivations and Putin's direct involvement, and the fact that Trump was briefed on it. R2 (bleep) 17:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Alleged interference

Hello User:BullRangifer! Can you please explain why you undid my edit? Thanks. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Don't make such a change again. Only Putin, Trump, and some GOP politicians deny that Russia interfered. Even most GOP politicians accept it as proven fact. We write what the consensus of RS and the experts say. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. What was unclear was if the Trump campaign was in league with that interference. According to the AG Barr, drawing from the Mueller Report, the Trump campaign did not work with Russia to affect the election. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not exactly what Barr said. He said the inquiry "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". "Did not find" is a different thing from "found there was NOT" conspiracy or coordination. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, it is somewhat surprising to see you and other respected editors making comments like these. If you are not able to find evidence to prove something happened, then you shouldn't go around claiming it happened. Normally people who push these views are called conspiracy theorists. Additionally, that's not exactly what Barr said either. Barr's words were "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. election." What you quoted was Barr's quote of the Mueller report. If Mueller's team "did not find" the evidence, then I am not sure who would be able to. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie: RE you shouldn't go around claiming it happened, please don't put words in peoples' mouths. No one - literally no one - has "claimed" that collusion "happened". We are just pointing out that it is incorrect to claim that this report said it DIDN'T happen. And don't put words into Mueller's/Barr's mouth. This statement - According to the AG Barr, drawing from the Mueller Report, the Trump campaign did not work with Russia to affect the election. - is incorrect; the report does not say that. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that no one has claimed that Trump colluded with Russia? That this collusion didn’t “happen?” To your other point, here's the direct quote from Barr's summary - The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. If that means something other to you than the Trump campaign did not work with Russia to affect the election. then please let me know. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I prefer using the wording in news media, rather than statements by U.S. intelligence. For example, the first source used in the article says, "Ever the master spy, Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB colonel, was personally involved in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and efforts to interfere in the American elections, U.S. and foreign intelligence officials tell ABC News."[23] Generally the media do not treat accusations against living people as facts until they are proved in court. TFD (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Generally the media do not treat accusations against living people as facts until they are proved in court." That is a strange thing to say in this context. All of our "facts" about "Russian interference" come from media who violate that rule. Keith McClary (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

They qualify their statements by using expressions such as "according to U.S. prosecutors." TFD (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: At some point it will be important to come back to this point, since we currently omit attribution in the first sentence of the article's lead. -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• It has become a fringe position to say that the Russians didn't interfere. Just this morning NPR said it's no longer in dispute that the Russians interfered. Even the unapologetically pro-Trump Chris Buskirk (American Greatness) agreed it's beyond dispute. R2 (bleep) 18:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we should add an attribution to the beginning sentence to avoid bias and attribute to who investigated and concluded this.Thenabster126 (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:YESPOV and well as WP:ITA. Facts that are widely accepted by reliable sources and only contested by the fringe should be stated simply as facts without in-text attribution, rather than cast as opinions. R2 (bleep) 17:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding attribution would actually add bias, so let's not. The fact that Russia interfered is a widely-reported, well-established fact which had been long been settled in the archive of this talk page. - MrX 🖋 19:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

How would adding the attribution create bias?Thenabster126 (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is about activities that are crimes under US law (Would anyone say it is about "interference" that is perfectly legal?). Many of the accused are named in the article, or their names are a click away in the sources. By saying that "interference" is a fact, we are saying these people are guilty of crimes. Keith McClary (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you believe that Wikipedia shouldn't ever talk about crimes that are known to have occurred, because, logically, every crime must have been committed by a criminal, and you feel it would be unfair of us to run the risk of accidentally identifying said criminals, even indirectly by linking to reliable sources that discuss the crimes. It would be nicer to intentionally mislead the readers of this article by pretending like the crime might not have occurred, because that's the polite thing to do. This idea that maybe we shouldn't be spreading free knowledge because the spread of knowledge can be inconvenient to certain people is an interesting suggestion. Geogene (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. As long as we make it clear who has and has not been convicted In other words we say accused of) as long as RS say there was a crime we do not have to say it is only an alleged crime.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, those who engage in crimes are criminals, Geogene.Thenabster126 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But does Keith McClary know that? Geogene (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we should just report what reliable sources say rather than what Wikipedia editors believe, even if we know better than reliable sources. In this case they refer to alleged interference. In the case of murders, we should never say someone was murdered or someone committed a murder unless that's what mainstream media say. We should never say someone committed a murder just because a police officer or prosecutor or grand jury says they did. It actually makes editing articles simpler and avoids conflict to just follow what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

In this case they refer to alleged interference. No, in this case many, many reliable sources refer to interference (not "alleged"). R2 (bleep) 20:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

The article makes a lot of claims about Russian actions, but then sources those claims to news articles that do not state those claims as fact. Take this sentence from the lede, for example:

Additionally, hackers affiliated with the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) penetrated computer systems of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Clinton campaign officials, notably chairman John Podesta.

The sentence is not sourced, but this information is discussed later on, in the section, "Cyberattacks on Democrats." In the first sentence of that section, in contrast to the lede, the claim of Russian hacking is attributed to the Special Counsel's indictments:

Starting in March 2016, the Russian military intelligence agency GRU sent "spearphishing" emails targeted more than 300 individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party or the Clinton campaign, according to the Special Counsel's 13 July 2018 Indictment.

This is an important distinction, because in the lede, the claim of Russian hacking is asserted as fact, whereas later on, it is made clear that this is a claim made in an indictment (i.e., an unproven claim made by prosecutors, which has not yet been tried in court). That section goes on,

Using malware to explore the computer networks of the DNC and DCCC, they harvested tens of thousands of emails and attachments and deleted computer logs and files to obscure evidence of their activities.

It's unclear to me, as a reader, whether this statement is meant to be attributed to the Special Counsel's indictments. It could be read either as a continuation of the preceding attributed statement, or as a new statement of fact. It's important to note that the first source, NBC News, does not state these claims of Russian hacking as fact. It attributes them to CrowdStrike and to "U.S. national security officials." The second source, Lawfare, attributes the claims to CrowdStrike and to the Special Counsel's indictments, and uses the words "allegations," "alleged," and "allegedly" quite liberally (over thirty times).

To summarize: the lede makes a definitive claim of fact, without sourcing. In the corresponding section in the body of the article, that claim is attributed to the Special Counsel's indictments, which obviously do not definitively establish the truth of the claim (unless we're going to say, from now on, that indictments equal truth). The sources used to back that section attribute the claims to the Special Counsel's indictments, to CrowdStrike, and to anonymous U.S. officials. At each step, from the sources, to the body of the article, to the lede, the level of attribution decreases, and the claim is stated with increasing confidence. That's a problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Legitimate concerns, but there are two things to consider before we jump to the conclusion that we need in-text attribution in the lead. First off, many reliable news reports use strongly endorsing attribution language such as "according to." You can find "according to" or similar language in just about every news source cited in this article or any other current events national security article. The intent in these stories is often clear that the news outlet considers their sources sufficiently credible that they stand behind the reporting. In these circumstances we aren't required to parrot the "according to" language. The second consideration is that in some of the instances you cite, I'll bet we can find more other sources that say the same thing without attribution. Many of the sources cited in our article are ones that were published as the news was unfolding, and were sourced to anonymous officials or similar. Many of the leaks were later publicly confirmed and/or broadly accepted by the reliable media as fact. We often never updated our sourcing to reflect that. I think your sourcing concerns point at least initially to the need for a broad-based refresh of our sources, not a change to the lead section. R2 (bleep) 18:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I very strongly object to the idea that "according to" amounts to an endorsement of the source's claims. The claims being attributed to officials are just that - claims by officials. The NBC News article cited above also carries a denial of the allegations made by U.S. officials, attributed to the Russian government. I don't take it we're going to interpret NBC News' decision to also print that denial as an endorsement of the Russian government's statements on the matter - nor should we.

We could use a broad-based refresh of the sources, but that refresh should be truly "broad-based," and acknowledge that there are sources that cast doubt on the allegations made by CrowdStrike and U.S. officials. Very little new information has come to light about the initial hacking claims that would prove them. Certain outlets do jump on the bandwagon and decide that allegations by U.S. government officials can be reported as fact, but there are outlets that retain skepticism and journalistic caution. We shouldn't be going out on a limb and following the most credulous outlets, while ignoring those that are skeptical. If we had done that in 2002-2003, another time in which a number of newspapers (some of the same ones we're using now) tended to report intelligence claims more than a bit too credulously, we would have ended up with egg on our faces. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What reliable sources cast doubt on interference? Sure early on there were proponents of various theories, but those theories were debunked as I understand it, and since then the way reliable sources describe the interference has only strengthened. R2 (bleep) 20:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the BBC consistently refers to "alleged" Russian hacking of the DNC (or uses similar phrases that express lack of certainty). I cited two examples below (the first hits I got for "bbc russian hacking dnc"): [24] [25]. Reuters also appears to consistently attribute claims of Russian hacking. The first three hits I get for "reuters russian hacking dnc": [26] [27] [28]. These news organizations treat the claims that Russia is behind the leak as allegations, which may or may not be true. In the absence of definitive evidence, that's an appropriate journalistic stance to take. We all remember what happened in 2002-2003, when some news outlets (the New York Times, for example) did not exercise such caution and accepted the unsubstantiated claims of U.S. officials with too much credulity. Faced with some news outlets that express more credulity and some that express more caution, I don't think we should err on the side of going with those that express credulity. If the BBC and Reuters are cautious, that makes a good argument for us to be cautious as well.

I'm going strictly on news articles here, leaving out opinion pieces. There are, of course, myriad opinion pieces that question whether believing U.S. officials, in the absence of firm, publicly available evidence, is a good idea. But in straight news articles, it is clear that some major outlets are exercising a level of journalistic caution that our Wikipedia article does not. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of reputable outlets that have dropped the attribution or "allegedly" qualifier. Do you have a sense of how most reliable sources are handling this? R2 (bleep) 00:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a sense for how most of them are handling it. I just know that there are several highly reputable outlets (e.g., Reuters, BBC) which treat the claim of Russian hacking as an allegation. I don't think we should ignore them, and choose to follow only those outlets that express more credulity. These are, after all, still unproven claims, and there is the obvious example of Iraqi WMD, in which some "reliable sources" (like the New York Times) expressed much more credulity about the claims of U.S. officials than they should have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides. WP:DEADHORSE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're beating a dead horse, but for me it seems important how many sources are using that sort of attribution or "allegedly" language. Pointing out that these claims are "unproven" is meaningless and a red herring. Most of the unattributed content in this encyclopedia hasn't been proven in court. R2 (bleep) 04:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not just that it hasn't been proven in a court of law. The evidence consists almost entirely of assertions by government officials. If there are news organizations like Reuters and the BBC that are unwilling to treat these assertions as fact, then Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be in the business of treating them as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

There are plenty of articles and references which say that there WAS Russian interference and plenty that say there WAS NOT Russian interference. As we are learning that Russian COLLUSION (not interference) is more or less turning out to be a giant conspiracy theory, we should call into doubt the truthfulness of claims of Russian interference as well. Therefore, this article absolutely SHOULD NOT start with the assertion "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump" without in some way addressing in the first sentence that those claims are disputed. Thus, the neutrality of this article is tainted and needs to be revised or marked as being not a neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcin7 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue of whether there was Russian interference is discussed in the section above titled "Conspiracy theory," and the issue of whether interference is being legitimately disputed is discussed in the section above titled "Alleged interference." Please do not start a whole new, redundant discussion. R2 (bleep) 17:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see examples of reliable sources (not Kremlin-run propaganda outlets) that state affirmatively that there "WAS NOT" Russian interference, all caps is optional. Geogene (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the BBC a "Kremlin-run propaganda outlet"? As far as I can tell, it consistently describes the claims of Russian hacking as "allegations" (or similar terms). Here are the first two links that popped up when I Googled "bbc russian hacking dnc": [29] [30]. Both couch these claims as allegations. The second source even has a section titled, "What are the allegations against Russia?" It's not that the BBC calls this a "conspiracy theory" or states that the allegations are untrue, but it also doesn't treat them as true. It treats them as allegations, and attributes those allegations to the people and organizations making them. It also attributes statements denying those allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed in the past that the BBC calls things alleged long after most all other sources have stopped. That's their editorial style. O3000 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Skcin claimed that there are numerous reliable sources that are saying interference did not happen. If that were true, we would have discussed them here by now. And their suggestion that Mueller report casts doubt on interference by (supposedly) not finding collusion seems like an absurdity, but it reflects the current talking points among Russia's nationalist media [31], [32]. And we have many new accounts suddenly coming here to promote that viewpoint. Agree with O3000 on the BBC's use of "allegation". Geogene (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Be precise. Mueller found collusion among the Russians. He just didn't find collusion that included Trump or members of his campaign staff. R2 (bleep) 19:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we're gonna be precise, then it's not that Mueller found no collusion, it's that Barr said that Mueller found not enough evidence of collusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, sure. And it wasn't no collusion, it was no conspiracy or coordination. R2 (bleep) 20:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate it, an investigation found thee was interference.Slatersteven (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The Barr letter itself says there was Russian interference in the election. It's right there in the letter that some are trying to use to spin that no collusion happened. Why are there so many accounts that have been idle for months coming around to this and other related articles trying to act like we have to rewrite them to be more pro-Trump? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

To be fair interference and collusion are not mutually inclusive.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A letter by the attorney general or a conclusion by a prosecutor does not magically become truth. We should say that Mueller alleged Russian interference and found insufficient evidence of collusion, not that Russia interfered but Trump did not collude, until reliable sources say that. TFD (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A while back I requested that we add a section questioning the hacking of the DNC. Information technology experts have pointed out problems with the official explanation, which only gave a high degree of confidence of hacking and there is no trace of data packets to Russians or anyone else. Guccifer 2.0 is obviously fake, and there are problems with the "Russian fingerprints", which also appear to be planted. And then there is the problem of the DNC refusing to let the FBI examine the server.Phmoreno (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

" Information technology experts have ..." - sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

...Specifically, multiple reliable sources as to avoid WP:FRINGE DN (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Intelligence services don't merely examine the target server and its traffic, they hack into the attacking server and watch so they have solid attribution:

• de Volkskrant reported on January 25, 2018, that Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the Russian hacking group Cozy Bear in 2014 and in 2015 observed them hack the DNC in real time, as well as capturing the images of the hackers via a security camera in their workspace

• The New York Times reported on July 18, 2018, that American, British and Dutch intelligence services had observed stolen DNC emails on Russian military intelligence networks

• DNC/CrowdStrike gave FBI a "disk image" of the server, a precise bit-for-bit copy. The first thing digital forensics analysts do is create a disk image to preserve the server's state exactly as they found it. So yeah, the FBI didn't get the box the server was in. soibangla (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead sources

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political discord in the United States." issue, not sourced and makes a claim that is not supported. "alleged" is more appropriate. Get on the ball, bias does not belong in Wiki.

Second: "His report confirmed that Russia had attempted to interfere in the election primarily in two ways: disinformation and social media campaigns, and computer hacking and strategic release of information.[2] "

The reference does NOT confirm this paragraph. Nowhere does it state positively that the "report" confirmed that Russia had attempted to interfere. Recheck the referenced article. Please, the report has not even been released and reference does not support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:32B0:F320:541C:F807:B8C8:D37D (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It's specifically stated in the Barr letter. O3000 (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It is sourced in the body, but maybe we need to add more sources to the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we're seeing a meatpuppetry campaign, so I'm not overly concerned. R2 (bleep) 17:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with R2. DN (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is a little harsh, implying that they were recruited or coordinated by some individual. I think what we're seeing is a bunch of Fox News watchers and Donald Trump tweet-followers, all rushing here to input the falsehoods about the Barr memo they are being fed. I had wondered if we are also getting targeted by Russian trolls, and that's possible, but I think this stuff is not coming from trolls - just misinformed people. IMO we should try to AGF - and maybe come up with a canned reply we can post to each of them. Maybe a reply that refers them to a discussion above where their concerns have been replied to/rebutted. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's Russian trolls, i.e. meatpuppetry. However I will always treat newcomers with appropriate respect. R2 (bleep) 18:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory 2

Violations of WP:Forum and WP:Advocacy of conspiracy theories.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey folks, I don't know if you're aware of this, but this russiagate thing is a conspiracy theory that's based “on grounds now resolutely proven by Mueller to have been extraordinarily flimsy.” Update needed! http://fortune.com/2019/03/28/trump-2020-russia-no-collusion/ , https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47688187 , https://jacobinmag.com/2019/03/russiagate-donald-trump-mueller-report , https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million etc... --Kitsum (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC) No. It's not.- MrX 🖋 11:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC) That's exactly what the article already says. Although a bit of balance in the lead section wouldn't hurt: just like 2012 Benghazi attack says "Despite persistent accusations against President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice, ten investigations — six by Republican-controlled congressional committees — did not find that they or any other high-ranking Obama administration officials had acted improperly.", this article should state that Trump faced persistent accusations of collusion. But nothing more than that; partisan screeds do not belong on Wikipedia. wumbolo ^^^ 22:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Well said. I feel the Mueller report would help shed more light on this subject, but currently it is being interpreted rather than released. DN (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) I don’t yet see any article that lists times when Trump was “falsely accused” of collusion. If he had been falsely accused, one might expect we’d have seen such an article by now, right? I mean, his supporters would’ve pounced on it. Does that suggest he wasn’t actually falsely accused, but rather the press reported on evidence that had come to light? The Trump Tower meeting, Kushner setting up a backchannel, the Seychelles meeting, the NRA contacts, the polling data Manafort gave Kilimnik, Trump Tower Moscow, Flynn’s coziness with Russians, Trump asking Russians to hack HRC and they tried that day, the escapades of Roger Stone, and more — none of that was made up. But remember the Benghazi stand–down order? That was made up and repeated over 100 times on Fox News. soibangla (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Michael Flynn, deep state target, former Defense Intelligence Agency, knew too much about improper activities and had to be silenced. Trump Tower meeting, an obvious set up (Natalia Veselnitskaya was on Fusion GPS's payroll). Criminal referrals for between one and two dozen individuals related to the fraudulent Russia counterintelligence investigation expected to be issued next week. Sit back and have plenty of popcorn.Phmoreno (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Phmoreno, again, you present no reliable sources, only conspiracy theories. There is no such thing as a "deep state". Flynn's "improper activities" involved lobbying foreign governments without registering with the U.S. government and lying to the FBI. Veselnitskaya was not working for Fusion GPS. Devin Nunes can make all the grandstanding criminal referrals he wants, that doesn't mean he has any evidence of crimes. I do have my popcorn ready to go though, but for when the House Judiciary Committee gets ahold of the Mueller Report. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Insurance policy", "Media leak strategy" (13 pages of leaks), FISA abuse (Opinion of the FISC Court), Bruce Ohr testimony, Nellie Ohr testimony, James Baker testimony, Inspector General Horowitz report due soon. Far more evidence of a conspiracy against Trump than there was of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. (Lisa Page, James Clapper and others testified that there was "no evidence".)Phmoreno (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Phmoreno, but still, you present no evidence of any conspiracy, just buzzwords and names of scapegoats. Lisa Page and James Clapper never said there was "no evidence" of Trump campaign collusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Lisa PagePhmoreno (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC) James Clapper NBC NewsPhmoreno (talk) James Clapper CNN interview last weekPhmoreno (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Phmoreno, the Lisa Page thing from The Hill is an OPINION PIECE written by John F. Solomon, who is not a reliable source at all. But anyway, that cite and the Fox News one only said the FBI didn't have evidence to support collusion BEFORE the Mueller probe. It says nothing about what Mueller found. Clapper's MTP interview has been mischaracterized. I didn't watch what he said on CNN. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Muboshgu,John Solomon is the most reliable source on the conspiracy, which is why people like you try to discredit him. Mueller had no evidence either.Phmoreno (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Phmoreno...sad. DN (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC) WP:Forum and WP:Advocacy of conspiracy theories. I see ZERO constructive editing on this subject based on RS from this editor. Nothing but repetition of Bongino's conspiracy theories. Time for a topic ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Sources

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

"The Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) focused on the culture of Muslims, Christians, Texas, and even LGBTQ,"

should be changed to

"The Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) focused on the culture of Muslims, Christians, Texas, and even LGBTQ people,"

LGBTQ is an adjective. "Culture of... LGBTQ" makes no sense, but "Culture of... LGBTQ people" makes sense.

Thank you, 108.245.173.217 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 🖋 02:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I took out the word "even". I don't see what purpose that was serving. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)

Those of you interested in this article, please keep an eye on Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump). AG Barr's statements today have caused a ruckus over there. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Spygate

Please be aware of this RfC: Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)#"False conspiracy theory" in lead – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias

The Russian government did not interfere in the 2016 elections to boost the campaign of Donald Trump and harm the campaign of Hillary Clinton. For every source you can find that says it, you can find just as many that says it did not happen, or that they are not sure. This has shown over time to be an obvious partisan issue, with individuals that lean "left" politically seeming to believe it did happen, and individuals that lean "right" politically seem to believe it did not happen. Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be a place for FACTS ONLY which is part of the reason it is so great and such a valuable resource, and this article is absolutely disgusting because it is showing that Wikipedia has a slant in its political leanings. This is unacceptable. People have edited this multiple times to do things like add the word "allegedly" (which honestly would make this article perfect and what it needs to be), but with every edit, it just gets edited back to this factual set in stone "proven" (even though Russian interference absolutely has NOT been proven) narrative. Guys, we are better than this. I'm disgusted at the people in this talk page that seem to be so ideologically driven to the notion that Russian interference DID happen as if saying anything other than this is blasphemy against their personal religious beliefs, and seem to un-do all edits immediately that says anything otherwise. Wikipedia is for facts, Russian interference is not proven and facts about it are muddy and seem to be based on partisan-beliefs, and this Wikipedia article NEEDS to be reflected as such.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40521985/russian-interference-in-us-election-no-one-knows-trump

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/russia-trump-and-2016-us-election#chapter-title-0-2

etc etc...

Skcin7 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Skcin7Skcin7 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Yes, Russia interfered with several U.S. elections on several fronts. That is a core fact, establish long ago by a preponderance of reliable sources. The article is not biased (see previous lengthy discussions and hundreds of reliable sources for why that's the case), although there may be small portions that don't reflect a neutral POV. I'm not sure why you tried to make your case by citing a nearly two year old article. The CFR article actually reflects what's in this article, although it is more than a year outdated as well. Wikipedia is not for FACTS ONLY; it's for knowledge. Wikipedia doesn't prove things. Please learn our policies and guidelines before you spout off.  WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR are particularly helpful.- MrX 🖋 11:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly agree this article is in terrible condition and need to be rewritten. It is just sad that Wikipedia is turning into a propaganda platform. I remember when I first read it, I thought it was vandalized.

I agree with addition of the word "allegedly". Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Might be difficult for you to accept, however, MrX is correct. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Final paragraph of lead

Can we please remove the final paragraph of the lead? William Barr is a bit player in this story, and his role has been inflated beyond reason. By the way, thank yous are in order. The last time I visited an editor had worked overtime to rewrite the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at re-writing that paragraph. I agree that it shouldn't mention Barr. Barr's letters aren't reliable secondary sources with respect to what Mueller concluded and their inclusion was always recentism in my view. R2 (bleep) 16:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of Mueller Report

I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about the the reliability of the Mueller Report as a secondary source for its investigative findings. R2 (bleep) 18:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Hello. Since we couldn't have consensus on the conspiracy theory discussion, then I suggest not treat this whole issue as bare facts and as if we know it happened. I suggest attribute the whole issue to the US intelligence agencies or government: "according to the US intelligence agencies, the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections happend with the goal of harming the campaign ....." as it enhance Wikipedia credibility and neutrality and shrinks the idea of Wikipedia being a propaganda platform. And we can discuss the best way to attribute the information and which information should be attributed. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That issue has already been settled. Please read through the previous discussions.- MrX 🖋 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I question whether "Shorouq" is acting in good faith. R2 (bleep) 15:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo the same goes to you. I've seen multiple discussions for you, you seem to be a Russophobic and conspiracy theorist, but that doesn't matter as long as your edits does not reflect your extremist opinion [against Russia and in the favor of the US], but unfortunately this is not the case here. So you are the last one that has the right to talk about "good faith". Apologies. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be OR to assert that only the US government has these views. I've seen sources from IT experts and investigative journalists that have come to the same conclusions. Geogene (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"with the goal of harming the campaign of hillary clinton"

This sentence needs to be changed to something less biased. OR a citation, with proof of the INTENT of the organization "troll farm". Very easily, posting things on facebook could be done by this organization to effect down ballot cultural issues important to members, leaders, or sponsors of troll farm, namely the russian government or individuals in it. And equally plausible, is an INTENT, to create chaos in the US election system, Donald Trump getting elected could be unforseen, and unexpected by everyone, and given how much energy supposedly was placed into this, it could have been the intent, to sow post-election distrust of President Clinton, the same way Russian government agents were involved in the GPS fusion steele dossier, and one of the russian individuals named by the Mueller report as at some point having been in contact with Don Jr. one time, was in contact with Christopher Steele before, and after the date of contacts with Don Jr. So this is speculation posing as fact, I could easily also speculate, that this individual meeting with Don Jr. may have been an attempt, to get the Trump's to fall into a trap that would then appear in the Steele Dossier and the Trumps didn't fall for it, so that would be interfering in the election for the benefit of hillary Clinton. This is one of the most left leaning articles on Wikipedia and it is morally wrong to call this a fact. I don't believe Posting anti-clinton articles on facebook is "interfering in the election" of a country that supposedly offers free speech to ALL, and I know, for a fact, one of the accounts listed as part of troll farm, flagged for posting Anti-Hillary, or alternative Right viewpoints and articles on twitter, was my former username, and I'm not Russian, I'm from Detroit, I just believe in alot of conspiracy theories namely the Clinton bodycount, so I have a lack of faith in this assessment by a deeply politicized intelligence Community.But you don't see me vandalizing the issue with my viewpoint, because i respect people's opinions and I respect Muellers right to believe facebook clickbait is like super influential. But I guess liberals don't care about inserting biases unless its right wing ones right ? So unless you can produce proof of "troll farm"s intentions as to why, it must be reworded to "for an uncertain" or "yet to be determined" reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40F:4101:110A:C0C8:543F:7690:DBBD (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. We merely summarize what reliable sources such as news articles say. If you think we're not accurately summarizing the available sources, then please identify the specific sources we're misrepresenting. R2 (bleep) 04:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:TPO, trolling posts can be deleted. Trolling is often subjective, but there are several red flags here, one is that the OP is trying to assure people (without any prompting at all) that they aren't a Russian bot, and then states that they have already been banned from Twitter for spreading what they call "alternative Right viewpoints". Geogene (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Take it to user talk or the admin boards if you're going to press that position. R2 (bleep) 20:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI this is not a joke. There is a chance that the report cannot be hosted on commons due to a handful of images with unknown copyright status present in the report. - Paul^T+/_C 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"this is the end of my presidency"

Re [33]. This WP:SYNTH two clauses by making it seem like when Trump said "I'm fucked" and "this is the end of my Presidency" he was referring to being unable to get anything done. But this is original research and probably false (the "I'm fucked" kind of signifies this). The two statements - "I'm fucked" etc and not being to get anything done where made in two separate statements to Sessions. Putting them together, even with the ellipses in there is classic WP:SYNTH where sourced material is put together to suggest a conclusion not found in the sources. Additionally, the whole second part isn't really being reported on, especially not as much as the "I'm fucked" part. It's also off topic. As a result it means it's WP:UNDUE here and I would appreciate it very much if User:Thucydides411, who's been both warned and topic banned from this article for exactly this kind of behavior, refrained from edit warring and tried to get consensus on the talk page. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how Thucydides411's conduct here was disruptive, and conduct issues don't belong on this page anyway. Nevertheless I agree with you that the second quote adds little to this article and should be removed. R2 (bleep) 00:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll quote directly from the Reuters article that references this material ([34]):

“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked,” Trump said.

Trump then turned his anger toward Sessions.

“You were supposed to protect me,” Sessions recalled Trump telling him.

Trump then again bemoaned the potential fallout of a special counsel.

“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me,” Trump then said, according to both Hunt and Sessions.

The above Reuters text connects these statements, as you can see. The three above statements occurred one after another, according to the Reuters article (the linking word "then" strongly suggests this). I don't see how it's synth to put these statements together, given that that's exactly what Reuters does. The last statement ("Everyone tells me ...") gives more context to the titillating first statement ("Oh my God ..."), which is probably why Reuters chose to include it in their coverage of the discussion between Trump and Sessions. Truncating what Trump is reported to have said at the first statement could easily give a false impression about what he meant.

Finally, if the first statement is on-topic, I don't see how the last statement is off-topic. They're both purely about Trump's reaction to the appointment of the Special Counsel. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Reuters text connects these statements". No it doesn't. He says the "I'm fucked" pat. He then does something else. He then does something else. He THEN makes the "Everyone tells me" statement. Your version of the article text makes it seem like the two statements are made one right after the other, making it seems like Trump thinks he's "fucked" because "he won't be able to do anything". That is NOT in the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how Reuters could more directly connect these statements. Reuters connects them with the word "then," indicating that they were said one after another. Reuters puts the statement that you're saying is unrelated under the sub-heading, "I'm fucked." If your theory is that these are completely disconnected statements, that's simply unsupportable by the text of the Reuters article.

"My" version of the text (it's actually a compromise version between what Lafayette Baguette, I and you added in) gives exactly the same impression that the Reuters article gives, which is that "Oh my God ..." and "Everyone tells me ..." were part of the same string of statements Trump made when he heard about the investigation. I think that including the first statement, but leaving out the last, leaves the reader to guess at what Trump means by the "Oh my God ..." statement, when the last statement ("Everyone tells me ...") gives context to the first. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"I don't see how Reuters could more directly connect these statements." - well, it couldn't, because they're not that connected. That's sort of the point. The key is that there's a couple of "then"s there. No matter how you look at it, the use of ellipsis to make it seem like these statements were made in reference to one another is your own WP:OR.

Please note also that at least two other editors have agreed that the second part of the quote is unnecessary and should be removed [35]. Consensus is against you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"well, it couldn't, because they're not that connected." Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant that Reuters very clearly connects the two statements, by putting them under the same heading, by making it clear that they were said one after another, and by even saying that in the final quote, Trump was returning to the same concern as he had in the first quote ("Trump then again bemoaned the potential fallout of a special counsel."). I honestly don't see how we can both read the same text and come to such wildly different conclusions about what it means. To me, it looks like Reuters is saying Trump was talking about the same thing with these quotes.

I agree with Cestlavieleir's statement below that we should either give the full context of what Trump was saying, or not include the quotes at all. Including only part of the quote, and removing the part where Trump specifically says why he's dismayed by the appointment of a special counsel, would be highly misleading. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The generic complaint about Special Counsels paralyzing a presidency gives more context into Trump's thought process than just focusing on the "I'm fucked" utterance. I have restored it. — JFG ^talk 08:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If we don't include the quotes which the report and sources relate I think it's best to remove it. Cestlavieleir (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: The exchange is on Vol II page 78.[36] The report weaves together Hunt’s notes with Session’s testimony. Immediately after the exchange, Trump asked for Sessions resignation; although it didn’t happen for a time. O3000 (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources don't emphasize the "Everyone tells me if you get one of these..." quote and neither should we. It is redundant with respect to Trump's more explicit quote. It adds nothing to the readers understanding of the underlying subject.- MrX 🖋 12:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course it adds to the understanding! When Trump says "This is the end of my presidency", there's a vast difference whether he says it because a) he knows he's guilty of something and is afraid of being found out, or b) such investigations are crippling to any presidency, irrespective of the veracity of the president's alleged misdeeds. The extended quote validates option b (as his state of mind), and that's consistent with most of Trump's public outrage over the "witch hunt". — JFG ^talk 12:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Can you provide a couple of sources that support your scenario 'b'? In other words, sources that say that Trump said "I'm fucked" because he believed he is innocent but felt that such investigations would be crippling to his presidency?- MrX 🖋 18:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• The second portion clarifies why he said the first. Leaving only the first implies he is admitting wrongdoing but the second portion clarifies the reason he felt "fucked. They don't have to be statements he made in conjunction.--MONGO (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  Can you cite some sources that say second portion clarifies why he said the first? - MrX 🖋 18:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  "The second portion clarifies " - No. That's exactly what WP:SYNTH is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  WP:SYNTH is when an editor combines information from different sources to come to a new conclusion that's not being made by the sources themselves. There are lots of sources that directly link the two quotes by Trump we're discussing. The sources indicate that he said them in succession, and Reuters even says that the second quote was about the same subject as the first. There's no synthesis here. It is the sources that are connecting these statements, not editors here. Beyond that, just read the quotes: it's obvious that they go together. Quoting only the first part of the quote ("Oh my God ..."), but not quoting the last part ("Everyone tells me ...") gives a misleading impression of what Trump was saying. The insistence on the part of some that the first part of the quote be included, combined with the insistence that the last part be excluded just doesn't make any rational sense if one's goal is simply to accurately represent what Trump said. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  What are you expecting those sources to say? Are you expecting something along the lines of, "Trump said, X, and then he continued, Y. As you can see, statement Y clarifies statement X." There are tons of sources that give both statements together, and the connection between them is obvious: [37] [38] [39], for example. You're creating an unrealistic threshold for inclusion, where unless the sources explicitly come out and state something along the lines of, "These two statements that we just strung together, as part of the same narrative, discussing the same issue, are connected, and the second statement clarifies the first," then we can't put the statements together. It's obvious that removing the last part of the quote serves to imply option (a) in JFG's explanation above - that Trump was upset because he knew he was guilty - and I'm sure you see that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  "What are you expecting those sources to say? Are you expecting something along the lines of, "Trump said, X, and then he continued, Y. As you can see, statement Y clarifies statement X."". Something along the lines of "Trump then clarified..." would work. But you ain't got that. So you're substituting your own WP:OR (it clarifies!) in instead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Cited sources [40] strongly emphasize one specific phrase, one that is currently cited on the page. One can add a lot of clarifications here, including phase from these sources I suggested to add (see below). What exactly (if anything) should be added is a matter of debate and needs consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps some clarification from the same source may be needed, but not the one included by T. That one! Why? Because it does clarify what exactly D.Trump expected from his "subordinates" (per source). He expected them to be his personal servants because he placed them to their position (just like Stalin expected this from his subordinates). Fortunately, at least some of his subordinates tried to serve the People and the Law. This is the essence of many controversies related to D. Trump. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, Puh-lease! Leave Stalin out of this. — JFG ^talk 10:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  Of course this could be any dictator who places "his" people to the key positions to protect his interests. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens in the USA righ now [41]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• RfC started below. - MrX 🖋 11:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Calls by Trump for Russians to hack Clinton's deleted emails"

There have obviously been many biased and false accusations in the media of Trump colluding with Russia, and I think it's important to try to avoid such false accusations in this article. For example Trump never called "for Russians to hack Clinton's deleted emails", that's nonsensical, as she had already DELETED and bitbleached those emails, so they were no longer on her server. What Trump was saying was that if Russia ALREADY had the emails, since they might have hacked Hillary's unsecure server, that if they could "find" those 30.000 emails that Hillary deleted, it would surely be appreciated if they delivered them... besides the fact that I think it's pretty obvious that he said that as a joke. He certainly did NOT ask Russia to hack her email, since those emails were already deleted and gone. So I have changed the headline "Calls by Trump for Russians to hack Clinton's deleted emails" to "Calls by Trump for Russians to find Clinton's deleted emails". TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted. Nobody cares that you think the media is biased. We follow the reliable, mainstream sources here, including the cited NY Times source: "If Mr. Trump is serious in his call for Russian hacking..." and "Mr. Trump later tried to modify his remarks about hacking Mrs. Clinton’s emails..." Neutrality^talk 13:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m OK with either word, although the NYT has also used the word hacked in this context and I think your narrative is off as the Russians did attempt to hack her office server immediately after Trump's statement.[42] I also think we should not assume anything Trump says that’s embarrassing is a “joke”. If he doesn’t laugh immediately after making a comment, we need to take the words of the President of the US at face value. OTOH, your comment that Clinton's server was not secure would also appear to be a repeat of possible false accusation. O3000 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe then attribute it to the source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Many of the sources use the AP wire service which quotes Trump as saying, "I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” — messages Clinton was reported to have deleted from her private email server. Then we have the March 2019 update by The Atlantic which includes Trump's full quote: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said, referring to the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s deleted messages. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Their summary of it states: More broadly, rewatching the press conference shows how Trump’s shtick, once so astonishing, has become familiar and numbing. Shtick - comic routine. We do need to update this article and present what actually happened and what was said with strict adherence to NPOV and fix the RECENTISM issue which is what's reflected in the current material. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's called WP:SYNTH DN (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

What part is SYNTH, DN? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The part where you take the editor's use of the word shtick literally. If Trump was a comedian on a sitcom pretending to run for president, it might make a little more sense, but that's not the case here. Aside from that, the consensus by RS indicates Russian officials began to target email addresses associated with Hillary Clinton’s personal and campaign offices “on or around” the same day Donald Trump called on Russia to find emails that were missing from her personal server, according to an indictment from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. DN (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• TheOriginalVegan, what's obvious to one person is not obvious to another. That's a symptom of the counry's political polarization that everyone ought to be aware of. Can you please try to focus on what's verifiable rather than what's obvious? R2 (bleep) 19:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, we follow what RS say, and they also quote Trump precisely, which does not include the word "hack", so let's get this right. If some RS interpreted that comment to mean hacking is another matter, and it's their opinion, which should be attributed. That Russia, immediately after Trump's request, did oblige him by hacking the DNC (not Clinton, whose server was very secure) is a different, but related, matter. My point is that we must get this right.
  We shouldn't place an opinion that is contrary to his actual statement in a heading. That's just wrong. A parallel situation is when some RS write that the Trump-Russia dossier claims that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russians. No, the dossier never uses the word "collude" in any form, only the word "conspiracy". In many cases in that article we simply use the wording of the RS, even if inaccurate, but in this case, I revised it for accuracy. This is a parallel situation, so let's do the right thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  There are two approaches in conflict here: first, we rely on the anaylsis of secondary sources rather than our own and second, we do not report facts in secondary sources when they inaccurately report what is in secondary sources. The most egregious example of inaccuracy is that Trump addressed "Russia," not "Russians." (Sarah Palin for example would not have said she could see Russians from her bedroom unless she was having a new porch put in.) I think therefore a reasonable approach would be to report exactly what Trump said, followed by criticism and his defense. TFD (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Something like

"Trump called on Russia to find her e-mails, which was seen by some media outlets as a call for them to engage in hacking".Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. We get his actual statement right, and also document how it was interpreted by some outlets. Immediately after that would be the logical place to write: "Five hours later[43] the Russians attempted to hack Clinton's server[44] for the first time." (or something to that effect). One could also add that they were ultimately unsuccessful[45] because her server was very secure, but they did succeed in getting into the DNC's servers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Trump Ordered Aides to Search for Clinton Emails, While the Russians Already Were Looking.

  Events that have/still are unfolding after the Mueller indictments were issued have been updated by CNBC and a several other media sources. The earlier articles now paying the price for RECENTISM. There are reliable updates in AP wires that corroborate factual information minus any headline sensationalism or clickbait spin, and a good source for that purpose. Time recently published a recap noting that it wasn't just the DNC that was hacked; the RNC and DHS were also targeted in the Gucifer2.0 hack - important information that needs proper inclusion in the lead in order to satisfy NPOV and a move away from the Trump collusion illusion. The earlier reports were based primarily on speculation/opinion instead of facts, much of which has been disproven and needs updating to reflect those facts. There's also the following NYTimes article, and the following lawsuit by a Russian tycoon who claims to have been a victim caught up in the Russian probe and alleging that the grounds for the sanctions were based on rumor and innuendo. The sanctions were removed but now he's suing for the money he lost when they were in place. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  That the RNC was also targeted by Russian hackers is not new news. They just never released anything. I disagree with all of your editorializing and suggest you avoid such. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  You might want to reread what you just said about this information not being "new news". WP is not about "new news", and therein lies the problem with so many of these political articles. The fact that it is not new news is why it belongs in the article as it is no longer a violation of WP:RECENTISM or WP:NEWSORG. It is notable information, published widely by RS, has lasting value and it should be included. On January 10, 2017 it was the headline for CNN: FBI's Comey: Republicans also hacked by Russia and the article included the following quote: Comey also said that the Russians "got far deeper and wider into the (Democratic National Committee) than the RNC," adding that "similar techniques were used in both cases." There are numerous published updates that corroborate what I've presented, further proving its lasting value. As for your aspersion and unwarrented "warning" that I am editorializing, I suggest you avoid repeating such behavior. I was making an observation, citing sources and stating published FACTS that have been ommitted from this article, which appears to be focused on the old Russian collusion conspiracy theory that has since been debunked by the Mueller report. The article needs to be updated to be compliant with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  We do cover the hacking of Republicans in this article. Look at the section: Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Hacking_of_Congressional_candidates -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  I saw that, BR. I was referring to the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  The Russians spy on everyone (as does the US). But, the Mueller Report goes into great detail about how the Russians interfered with the US election to favor Trump. That has not been debunked. O3000 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  "I was making an observation, citing sources and stating published FACTS that have been ommitted from this article, which appears to be focused on the old Russian collusion conspiracy theory that has since been debunked by the Mueller report." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you may be referring to the Barr summary. The Mueller report confirms Russian interference and multiple connections between Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government. DN (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  This discussion is confusing and all over the place. I thought we were talking about Trump's "Russia, if you're listening" request? Now we're talking about the RNC and the Deripaska lawsuit? Atsme, may I suggest you start new threads on those topics? Make a case for inclusion of each item instead of complaining about NPV in general. R2 (bleep) 22:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  I was following the discussion after my initial comment, which included what Trump actually said in context according to the RS, and then SYNTH came up in response...then other comments followed, so yes - we need to stay focused. I've said my piece. G'night! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge sections on the Internet Research Agency?

It seems that Social media and Internet trolls and Targeting of important voting blocs and institutions can be merged. Both concern the efforts of the Internet Research Agency. But perhaps not merge the subsection of Influence on FBI investigation of email server. starship.paint ~ KO 03:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Subjects not covered by Mueller Report

There is a lot of off-topic material - unrelated crimes and "process crimes". The Mueller Report doesn't seem to even mention Vekselberg, Butina, Vashukevich, NRA or "Influence on FBI investigation of email server". Is any "RS" still saying these are related to "Russian government interference in the 2016 United States election"? Wikipedia removed "RS" material from the "War on Terror" article when it turned out to be bunk. Is it time to do the same here? Keith McClary (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing Vashukevich completely. I would have to look at those other suggestions in more detail. Geogene (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

How does the absence of these items in the Mueller Report mean they're "bunk?" R2 (bleep) 16:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

And on a related note, did you notice in the Mueller Report (Appendix D) that Mueller made 14 referrals that are ongoing, of which we had only known of 2 of them? This means that the items you list could be among the other 12. R2 (bleep) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are "outside the scope of the Special Counsel's jurisdiction", so probably of this article as well. Keith McClary (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

At least there should be some indication in the article of what these have to with the election and the Russian government, preferably not based on political committees or speculative opinion pieces by writers with obvious partisan agendas. (And, I said the WoT stuff was bunk.) Keith McClary (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, no subject should be included in this article if its relevance to the subject of the article isn't supported by reliable sources. I checked all of the items you listed in your original post. I believe they all satisfied this requirement except for "Influence on FBI investigation of email server," which I blanked. That section never should have been the article, regardless of the Mueller Report. R2 (bleep) 20:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Russian interference?

Hush, fine friends, before this turns into that. R2 (bleep) 16:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace on the face of the very idea for what education (and/or knowledge) is supposed to be. It is locked, because it represents the hardest of all facts, or because it is so outside the realm of reason, that only the heavy umbrella of this institution's high bureaucracy can keep it in existence still? Sickening! Wikipedia is clearly a tool, but tools can be used from different hands, for various purposes.--Utar Sigmal (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks for your opinion, but could you make some suggestions as to what should change in the article, and back it up with sources? — JFG talk 04:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the following quote be added: "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything."

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. This is not a result I like returning, but I cannot see how there is one. Fundamentally, this is an editorial dispute: is it more neutral to break with sources and include more content than they do, or to omit relevant context that reliable sources often omitted and thus (potentially) imply unfair things about Trump?

Those who favored inclusion believed the second quote explained what Trump meant by his first, and argued that omission deprives the reader of useful context for interpreting the sensationalist first quote, which they asserted otherwise seems a confession of guilt. Those who opposed inclusion generally argued one of two veins: that including a detail that many reliable sources omitted gives it undue weight, or that including a detail which many sources omit in order to make Trump look less bad breaks with our mission of being a disinterested summary. Other points of contention, such as whether the first and second quotes were indeed part of the same conversation, were simply details intended to support one of the above positions.

Thus, the core question may be summed as follows: is it more neutral and truer to our mission to cover the incident comprehensively and fairly, or to faithfully represent and summarize our sources? This is a tension within our neutral point of view policy itself, and we therefore cannot answer that question by citing policy. We must use our common sense and editorial judgement to decide in this particular instance for ourselves, yet our sense and judgement could not find agreement. Consequently, I find no consensus.

Importantly, more than a few editors expressed the opinion that neither quote was worthy of inclusion. There may be consensus to remove reference to the incident altogether. I would advise another RfC be held to establish consensus either for or against inclusion of the first quote. It has already been removed uncontroversially, rendering an RfC superfluous. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the highlighted quote (or some form of it) be added to the article?

According to the report issued by Robert Mueller, Trump was informed on May 17, 2017 by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the appointment of a special counsel, and responded by saying, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked". In a subsequent sentence Trump also said to Sessions "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything."

- MrX 🖋 11:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Yes

• It is included in both sources that support that sentence in the article. It is also a key part that gives the quote context. Yes most headlines lead with the I'm fucked part, but they also add other sentence as well. PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Of course. In fact we either include it or we include none of the passage.--MONGO (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Omission takes his statement out of context; therefore, noncompliant with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, no, actually the opposite. Combining the "I'm fucked" part into one sentence with the "can't do anything part" is pretty clear case of WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not SYNTH when stated that way in the same source. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• If we only focus on the sensationalist "I'm fucked" and "this is the end of my presidency" utterances, we imply by omission that Trump was feeling guilty of something related to Russian interference, while Mueller's investigation established that he was not. The RfC's highlighted sentence clarifies Trump's state of mind, and must be included for neutrality. Alternatively, we could remove the sensationalist quotes entirely. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• If the "I'm fucked" part of the quote is included, the full quote has to be included. This isn't some minor stylistic issue. This is a basic question of whether editors here want to accurately report what Trump supposedly said, or whether they want to remove half the quote in order to give it a completely different meaning. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  You keep on pretending that these two clauses where all made in one sentence or single utterance. That of course is false. Trump said one thing. Then he said some other things. Then he got to saying this part. Linking them together is WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  From what I read above, Thucydides has not "pretended that these two clauses where all made in one sentence or single utterance". I could as well say "please stop pretending that these sentences are not connected to one another", and I would be right, because that's exactly what you are doing. There is no synthesis at all because RS clearly connect the snippets. Your position is totally illogical. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes absolutely. Trump knew and maintained all along that he didn't do anything wrong. It is therefore obvious that the "I'm fucked" comment referred to the cloud of an investigation hanging over his administration, NOT the potential of any bad result of the investigation ending his presidency. Having the first part without the later context implies a different meaning, which we should be careful not to do. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, of course, only keeping the first dramatic outburst while leaving out this explanatory part would be an example of political bias. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak yes. It's actually my opinion that we should string together all of the quotes in the report, something like: According to the report issued by Robert Mueller, Trump was informed on May 17, 2017 by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the appointment of a special counsel, and responded by saying, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked". The president went on to lambast Sessions repeatedly, saying that Sessions had "let him down" and that "you were supposed to protect me". Trump then said "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me." before asking Sessions to resign. I don't think that the "Everyone tells me..." quote negates the "Oh my God..." quote as much as some people in this talk page appear to believe, but I do think we should give as complete a picture of this incident as possible. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per JFG's response to Marek above. I also agree with Loki that including the full exchange/context is worth it. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:07, 03 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, you really have to IF you are going to include the first part (the "I'm fucked" part; if you want to omit the whole paragraph, that's OK too, altho I wouldn't). Otherwise you give the completely false impression that Trump thought he was guilty of something. It's pretty close to 100% certain that he doesn't think he's guilty of anything and never did. Instead, he was worried about the general annoying and distracting mess that was going to (and did) ensue. So yeah, not including that part definitely gives a false impression to the reader. We mustn't do that. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, per Thucydides411 clarification in the Threaded Discussion, per the report clearly indicating that Trump was taking about the same event in both quotes, and per Herostratus. Moreover, only including the "OMG" part sensationalizes it in such a way that it is literally "unbelievable". That is, the average reader will assume that this is yet another "example" of Wikipedia being editable by anyone, and won't believe that Trump actually said that. Part of this is due to the fact that Trump is constatnly bragging about how great he is doing in office, how he "never settles" (in court), and is always winning. Likewise, the "I'm fucked" quote is so far out of character (for Trump), that I could even imagine anti-Trump Democrats having a hard time believing he said it. By including this second quote, it gives context to the first, and makes the whole account believable. If everyone says that "these drag on for years and you can't get anything done" then it's logical to think that your presidency is "fucked". This turns an alleged reaction into a believable reaction, that is, it goes from "are you sure that happened?" to "that probably happened". Lastly, the context shores up any WP:NPOV concerns by eliminating out of context POV-bias. In full context, bias is no more- ElectroChip123 (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No

• It really all seems a bit trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  Agree, so remove it all instead of keeping just the misleading sensationalist part? — JFG ^talk 09:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  Different issue, but I see no real value to eitehr quote.Slatersteven (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sources don't emphasize the highlighted quote and neither should we. The two quotes in the green box above are not merely subsequent sentences. They are separated by three sentences in the Mueller report.[46] I have only found one source that sort of connects the two quotes[47]. Most sources either include the entire passage from the Mueller report[48] or actually explain that Trump expected AG Sessions to protect him.[49][50][51][52]. The only way both of these quotes should be combined into one paragraph is if we also explain that Trump indicated that "Sessions had let him down" or that Trump expected Sessions to protect him. That would tend to make this material excessive for this article. - MrX 🖋 11:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. I've heard the "I'm fucked" statement dozens of times by now but this is the first time I've ever heard the "Everyone tells me..." statement. We should follow our sources and have it stand alone. Gandydancer (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• No, because cited sources emphasize another phrase. That phrase is just one of many which appears in subsequent discussion in sources. What exactly needs to be included is questionable. I would include another additional phrase because it adds a lot more clarity (see my comments above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. I'm not disinclined to include it, but having actually (finally) muddled through the report myself, the statements aren't directly connected. It has more to do with Trump berating Sessions. That's just my reading of it, though it does seem to be reflected in the sources too. Additionally, as the second statement may not even be a contextual colouring of the inital exclamation, though it might be convenient to think so- the report doesn't make such a connection. This would be SYNTH if we included it in this way- we're adding context that isn't necessarily there. Feel free to include it, but the current phrasing is definitely prejudicial. The fact that media sources have also barely mentioned it is also relevant. It may be a result of how dramatic Trump's original statement was, but each of the statements have been framed separately, likely because it isn't contextual to the first. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. I did a quick survey of reliable news sources that include the "I'm fucked" sentence. Maybe half included the sentence in question here as well. However, none of those sources juxtaposed those two sentences without including additional sentences such as, saying to Sessions, "You were supposed to protect me." The language at issue has been expressly cherry-picked in an effort to balance out the "I'm fucked" language. We shouldn't do that. R2 (bleep) 17:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please reserve extended discussion for the "Threaded discussion" subsection below. R2 (bleep) 20:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you be OK if the full excerpts were added, including the "you were supposed to protect me" directed at Sessions? — JFG talk 17:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Good question, but no. It would resolve that particular neutrality problem, but in my view it would be excessive detail in violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALASPS. R2 (bleep) 17:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC) By the way, making an effort to balance out the "I'm fucked" language is exactly what Wikipedians are supposed to do, per WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. Leaving out the clarification makes our text grossly slanted against Trump, and we shouldn't do that either. — JFG talk 17:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC) No, that would be false balance. We do not choose content based on how it reflects on the subject. R2 (bleep) 17:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Removing the last part of the quote substantially changes its apparent meaning. This is a very serious WP:BLP issue, and I'm struck by how cavalier you guys are being here. You either quote the person fully, or you don't quote them at all. You don't erase half a quote in order to make it appear to mean something different than the full quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Well, it really isn't in the same quote. It's in the same paragraph. But, even the paragraph does not include all of the discussion and there are snippets of testimony from both Hunt and Sessions. O3000 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC) The three quotes were supposedly said in succession. That's how it is presented in the Mueller Report, and it's how Reuters summarized it. Removing the last part of the quote clearly changes the apparent meaning, but I suspect that's the goal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• No - off topic, not present in most sources and a bit of an attempt to white wash the other quote. Regardless, that part should most definitely not be synthesized with the "I'm fucked" part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Lean no, but... This really does come down to, as others have noted above, whether or not the highlighted section represents a continuation of the same exchange as the forgoing quote. If this represents one contiguous occurrence of conversation between the same parties roughly contemporaneously, then yes, it very much is relevant context to the second quote. If it's not, then each individual statement needs to pass it's own WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT analysis for inclusion irrespective of the inclusion of the other statement, and such analysis must must be predicated upon the weight of coverage and specific analysis/statements found in WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources, not the value we ascribe to that particular piece of information within our own idiosyncratic personal views. To predicate inclusion on the latter would be clear WP:original research in an editorializing form, and counter to WP:NPOV. Now I take it from the forgoing discussion that no one has found indication in any source that these two quotes were linked in one exhange, which means each quote should be given a WP:DUE analysis for inclusion, but even if both are thereafter included, the language linking the two must clearly underscore the fact that there is not reason to believe that these two statements occurred roughly contemporaneously in one exchange. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  (Thread moved below. — JFG ^talk 00:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

• No - mostly that it's a WP:OR juxtaposition of things, although the first impression is it's a colorful WP:OFFTOPIC digression that's not needed. OFFTOPIC as not about Russians or 2016 election interference. And not needed since there are other articles it could be said in and it's just not helpful here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete this paragraph listed as my first choice. Agree with Markbassett, this paragraph seems irrelevant to this article ... unless someone provides a source linking the events. Second priority - follow LokiTheLiar’s suggestion of discussing even more of the conversation as context. starship.paint ~ KO 01:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Symmachus' take on this. DN (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• No, but this could belong elsewhere on the Wikipedia articles about Donald Trump and his presidency. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

So, there are four parts to this exchange:

1. The I’m fucked part
2. Three sentences abusing Sessions
3. ”Independent counsels ruin”
4. Next paragraph, telling Sessions he should resign.

Different possible inclusions:

A. Just part 1. Some think this is misleading without part 3. But, it appears to be the most emphasized in RS by far.

B. Parts 1 and 3. May (or may not) provide a better understanding of part 1. Not common in RS. May mislead by not including three intervening sentences, which may (or may not) suggest part 3 is an afterthought.

C. Parts 1, 2 and 3. Removes the problem above. But, I haven’t seen this in RS.

D. All four parts. Includes the follow on action which looks to be important. But, although part of the same exchange, it is in another paragraph and I haven’t seen it in RS. This appears to be the fullest description of the exchange. However, although the Mueller report is obviously reliable as to the content of the Mueller Report, it is not up to us to determine what parts are more important.

E. Include none of this. Kinda the default if we can’t agree on anything else. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Including part 1 without the context that follows implies that Trump believed the special council investigation would find something incriminating that he had done. Trump maintained since the beginning that he didn't do anything wrong, so this wouldn't make sense. We should not leave out crucial context as to why he made that comment - he said Part 1 because of Part 3. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that he publicly maintained X doesn't mean that he wouldn't say something contradictory in an oval office meeting with staff. We don't know why he said what he said. O3000 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We do actually know why he said what he said - at least, according to the Mueller Report. It's right there in the statement: "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything." The idea that this is statement is really just so difficult to interpret really strains plausibility. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You "know" why he said it. I know what he said. I don't know why. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We're entering into a realm of sophistry that I don't care to indulge in any further. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, actually we do know why he said what he said, because he clarified it directly in the next few sentences, all of which Mueller clearly reported. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(In response to SnowRise's !vote of "Lean No but…" — JFG ^talk 00:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

"Now I take it from the forgoing discussion that no one has found indication in any source that these two quotes were linked in one exhange". Quite the contrary, Reuters reports are that these sentences were not only said in the same conversation, but sequentially ([53]). This is how Reuters describes the series of statements:

“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked,” Trump said.

Trump then turned his anger toward Sessions.

“You were supposed to protect me,” Sessions recalled Trump telling him.

Trump then again bemoaned the potential fallout of a special counsel.

“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me,” Trump then said, according to both Hunt and Sessions.

There are a lot of people above trying very hard to argue that somehow, three statements said in a row about the same subject are completely unrelated. It's just not a tenable position. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see that you have quoted the source faithfully and fully there, but it's of great consequence that we are talking about one secondary source summarizing content in the primary source. Others will vary in their interpretation, so the exact elements to be included will come down to WP:WEIGHT with regard to the descriptions in those sources. But not for nothing, how are these details laid out in the report itself? Does someone have a link or page reference handy to direct me to the appropriate excerpts, spare me the trouble of tracking it down myself? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Snow Rise, the relevant passage from Part II, page 78 of the Mueller Report is under the fold. R2 (bleep) 15:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope no one minds. I replaced this with the full text including footnotes as the footnotes show how multiple sources were used to reconstruct this exchange. O3000 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC) On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller, ITT as Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the Russia investigation and matters that arose from the investigation.501 The President learned of the Special Counsel's appointment from Sessions, who was with the President, Hunt, and McGahn conducting interviews for a new FBI Director.502 Sessions stepped out of the Oval Office to take a call from Rosenstein, who told him about the Special Counsel appointment, and Sessions then returned to inform the President of the news.503 According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I' m fucked."504 The President became angry and lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation, stating, "How could you let this happen, Jeff?"505 The President said the position of Attorney General was his most important appointment and that Sessions had "let [him] down," contrasting him to Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy.506 Sessions recalled that the President said to him, "you were supposed to protect me," or words to that effect.507 The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said, "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me."508 The President then told Sessions he should resign as Attorney General.509 Sessions agreed to submit his resignation and left the Oval Office.510 Hicks saw the President shortly after Sessions departed and described the President as being extremely upset by the Special Counsel's appointment.51 1 Hicks said that she had only seen the President like that one other time, when the Access Hollywood tape came out during the campaign.512 501 Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Order No. 3915-2017, Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters (May 17, 2017). 502 Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 13; Hunt_2/l/18 302, at 18; McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 4; Hunt-000039 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes). 503 Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 13; Hunt 2/1/18 302, at 18; McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 4; Hunt-000039 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes). 504 Hunt-000039 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes). 505 Hunt-000039 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes); Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 13-14. 506 Hunt-000040; see Sessions 1/17/ 18 302, at 14. 507 Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 14. 508 Hunt-000040 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes); see Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 14. Early the next morning, the President tweeted, "This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!" @realDonaldTrump 5/18/17 (7:52 a.m. ET) Tweet. 509 Hunt-000041 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes); Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 14. 510 Hunt-000041 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes); Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 14. 511 Hicks 12/8/17 302, at 21. 512 Hicks 12/8/17 302, at 21. The Access Hollywood tape was released on October 7, 2016, as discussed in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra. 513 McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 9; SCR015_000175-82 (Undated Draft Memoranda to White House Staff). 514 McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 9; SCRO 15_0001 75-82 (Undated Draft Memoranda to White House Staff). The White House Counsel's Office had previously issued a document hold on February 27, 2017. SCRO 15_000171 (2/17 /17 Memorandum from McGahn to Executive Office of the President Staff). 515 Hunt-000047 (Hunt 5/18/17 Notes); 5/18/17 Letter, Sessions to President Trump (resigning as Attorney General).

The report, like Reuters, presents this as one conversation. It says that when Trump said, "Everyone tells me ...", he was returning to the original topic - the topic that provoked him to say, "Oh my God ..." I just don't see how anyone can interpret these statements as being about different subjects. They were said in the same conversation, about the same subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump’s speeches and discussion often tend to bounce around. And, he often makes a statement, and then pulls back or changes the coloring in a subsequent statement, possibly when it occurs that the original statement might cause difficulty. (“They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. -- And some, I assume, are good people.") Frankly, I don’t think we can interpret the true meaning of these statements at all. I don’t know if the second statement was a continuation of the same thought (after the intervening bashing of Sessions), or an afterthought, or covering for the first. I fear no matter how this is presented, we are leaving the reader with an impression that may be false. Luckily, WP guidelines allow us to lean on RS. We can use the preponderance of RS to decide what to include. O3000 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean the report itself says The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said so yeah it is pretty clear that the report is saying he returned to the first point with the "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me." part. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Agreed. The report itself says he's talking about the same subject. The Reuters description says he's talking about the same subject. Just looking at the statements, it's clear that they're about the same subject. "Trump's speeches and discussion often tend to bounce around" isn't an excuse to ignore the obvious connection between these statements, pointed out by both the report and by Reuters. Extracting only the "Oh my God ..." part clearly gives a misleading impression of what he's saying, and anyone here who's interested in accurately reflecting Trump's statements, as opposed to trying to imply that he was admitting guilt, will either vote to include the entire statement, or to not include it at all. It's really that simple. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to imply a damn thing. I'm trying to avoid mind reading. Please WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no mind-reading involved. Trump said it out loud. I assume good faith until presented with evidence to the contrary. The idea that everyone is having such a hard time seeing the connection between two statements made by the same person, in the same sitting, about the same subject is beginning to strain credibility, however. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Look, I haven't even !voted on this as I haven't made up my mind. But, your lack of good faith is become tiresome. O3000 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Good faith is stretched thin when editors seem unwilling to accept that the "I'm fucked" comment, taken in the context of the directly following sentences, clearly refers to the impression Trump had that the special counsel investigation would hamper his ability to govern. Since you haven't made your mind up yet, what are you trying to determine? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Good faith is stretched when editors don’t agree with other editors. The second statement is not directly following the first. There are intervening statements. Spontaneous statements made in the excitement of the moment are often considered an exception to hearsay as they tend to convey a more honest response than a later statement made with the advantage of the time to consider the impact of words. The first statement was made immediately after receipt of bad news; and we know that Trump doesn’t filter his first responses well. I’m not saying that’s what happened here. I’m saying I don’t know. Even if I had been present, I still wouldn’t know. I refuse to assume any interpretation and will not be convinced by suggestions that I’m trying to imply something when I’m the only one that isn’t. O3000 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC).

Well, putting aside the question of good faith and fair play (and as far as I've seen here, everyone is comporting with both), I have to say, now that I see the excerpt in whole, it looks very much to me, in my personal interpretation, as if this was one exchange in which all of these comments took place. There's just no indication to the contrary, and in a meticulously crafted document composed by a team of legal professionals headed by a lawyer and analyst of Mueller's caliber, I trust there would have been a notation to suggest if there were a change of venue/circumstance for the conversation at this point--that's simply an expectation of this sort of report, if nothing else.

However, at the end of the day, neither my personal interpretation, nor any other editor's, should be the determinative factor here; even if we all were in agreement that these comments were all of a single stream of conversation, and even if every single editor here agreed that this is valuable context for Trump's earlier comment, that's not our call to make and we'd still have to omit it if it failed to establish appropriate weight and indicia of relevance in our secondary reliable sources. That's why, even though I feel significantly more ambivalent about it now, given my personal interpretation, I feel I must stand by my original !vote: this is still a WP:DUE matter and even if I feel the comment was almost certainly a part of one contiguous conversation and probably adds worthwhile context, I can't supplant that personal analysis in the place of the necessary emphasis of this statement that has to arise out of our reliable sources themselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems fairly simple IMO. Either include everything, or exclude it all. If anyone has a better compromise to reach consensus, please feel free to share. DN (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That is kind of where I am at as well. I would be fine with dumping the whole thing. PackMecEng (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng, Darknipples, and Objective3000: - you guys haven't voted yet right? starship.paint ~ KO 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Added, thx for the notice.DN (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am just not a big fan of either, the more I think about it I would go with remove the whole thing. PackMecEng (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

MrX - can the RfC list an option to remove this entire paragraph? starship.paint ~ KO 02:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: No, RfCs shouldn't be changed after people have commented. You can start another RfC for removing the rest of the material.- MrX 🖋 16:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nah I won't be. Too busy. Giving this up to anyone who wants. starship.paint ~ KO 00:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar summarises the whole convo in their vote: According to the report issued by Robert Mueller, Trump was informed on May 17, 2017 by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the appointment of a special counsel, and responded by saying, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked". The president went on to lambast Sessions repeatedly, saying that Sessions had "let him down" and that "you were supposed to protect me". Trump then said "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me." before asking Sessions to resign. this is the one I’d support if this content has to be included. starship.paint ~ KO 01:56, 27 April 2019 (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.

American political jargon

This maybe should be its own section but I've identified language problems in the first paragraph of the article and appear to be throughout the article as well. The issues include a reliance on American political jargon and a lack of context on the items being introduced. There's also the issue over what "interference" actually means, and to what extent it is appropriate to be used to describe activities. We don't make value or moral judgments about subjects that we write articles about, and we should be wary not to characterise the activities as bad. Neutrally explaining the events should come across as bad enough. There's really an entire issue over whether these articles should be titled as interference, with the main argument in support of this being that the so-called Muller Report uses that title, but this report is only one source albeit a very reliable one, but that investigation is a notable event in itself. I'm glad to see that this article isn't plagued by weasel-words that seek to minimise the possibility or the culpability of entities involved, but we should still remain vigilant about this. I'm sure there are more concerns about the article but this is what comes to mind now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo Instead of reverting my edit, can you make alterations that you feel are necessary? I'd like to continue making edits to considerably improve the language and phrasing of the article to a more encyclopaedic standard. I really do not want to engage in tedious discussions about every word that I or others change. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I made some adjustments as requested. Some of your changes were grammatically correct or I felt they made the wording slightly more awkward. Your suggestion that we avoid the word "interference" is a non-starter. It reflects a total lack of awareness of how the reliable English-speaking news media has covered this subject for the past 2+ years, including virtually all of the cited sources. Do you mind me asking where you're from? R2 (bleep) 03:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying here and elsewhere, that the word "interference" has become more a media term than something objective. The fact that the media refers to the events as interference, and even worse as "Russian interference", is not a good reason for us to do so. It's not as if they have analysed the subject and have come to the conclusion that the events constitute interference more than they do any other word, it's simply a media term that they've decided to use. Unfortunately it appears to be too entrenched in Wikipedia to be changed, but I do think we can at least change it to "Russian government interference" rather than "Russian interference". Of course we should attribute facts in the article to reliable media sources, but we shouldn't follow things like "the Russians" mediaspeak when we are creating an encyclopaedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Interference" is not "jargon" and is not a media-only term. It's also what the intelligence communities and the Mueller investigation called it. There is no reason to try to avoid this word, which is far and away the most common and most comprehensible description of what happened. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Intelligence community" is another phrase that we should avoid in writing an encyclopaedia. Unless there is a need to refer to the United States Intelligence Community administration office specifically, we should attribute events/statements to particular agencies, agencies in general, or individuals involved with intelligence. On "interference", I've acknowledged that the word being part of the long title of the Muller Report has established it further, but I would suggest something like Russian government actions in the 2016 United States presidential election would be much more specific and removes any value judgement. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I commend you for your independent thinking, but when you're suggesting we go our own way apart from not only the news media, but nearly all other reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed scholarly works, as well as, say, Encyclopedia Britannica [54], then then you're going to find yourself walking a very lonely road indeed. R2 (bleep) 05:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

We should be looking for the most encyclopaedic way of writing. I have no problem with the article describing that these events have been characterised as interference, but it is not an objective description.

Most of all I want to say to everyone generally that this should just be something that we pay attention to when editing. I believe that the contributors to this article are more than competent editors so I don't feel like this is me against everyone else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

123IP, you wrote: "The fact that the media refers to the events as interference, and even worse as "Russian interference", is not a good reason for us to do so." Actually, it is the reason we MUST do it. We follow the lead of RS, instead of substituting our own OR reasoning. We use their language. We do not avoid their terms. On the contrary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of point that I sought to pre-emptively argue against. We most certainly do not use the media's language, we use encyclopaedic language. I'm aware of sentiments that Wikipedia should mimic the sources as much as possible, but this is not the case as it pertains to style and tone where we are to maintain a purely encyclopaedic format. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There term interfere means "to involve yourself in a situation when your involvement is not wanted or is not helpful." (Cambridge)[55] It seems that Mueller used the term in its ordinary sense. TFD (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, usage here, and in most sources, matches dictionary definition. No problem at all. — JFG ^talk 16:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Logical order

As part of a series of recent changes, the description of interference activities was moved to the beginning of the lead, while the history of who said what was moved down, then MelanieN restored the history of disclosures to the first paragraph.[56] I believe it is more logical for readers to first learn what happened, and then only see how the Russian activities were uncovered and disclosed. I'll swap this back for clarity, but I'm happy to hear other opinions. — JFG ^talk 06:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Done some edits towards this logical order. We have now, in sequence:

1. Intro sentence
2. Russian interference activities
3. U.S. reactions
4. Disclosure history and investigation report

Tell me what you think. — JFG ^talk 06:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

By intro sentence, can this be the two sentences that I proposed in the preceding section, or does that count for both 1 and 2 in your sequence? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I have left the intro sentence as is, per MrX's recent reversion. Feel free to debate how it may be improved. Your proposed second sentence "The activities mainly comprised of…" is not necessary, thanks to the second paragraph already describing the various Russian efforts. — JFG ^talk 07:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This keeps changing very fast, as I proposed that second sentence before that particular second paragraph was added to the article. As such I've removed the second sentence from that proposal. Can we incorporate the remaining sentence into the first of the sequence you've proposed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Depends how the discussion above evolves. For now, the reverted longstanding version holds. Keep discussing. — JFG ^talk 13:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, unless I'm missing something. 3½ years ago, the disclosure was the most prominent chunk of information, but now I think we should concisely explain the actually activities of the interference, and then the subsequent events. - MrX 🖋 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Top administration official accuses Russia of election interference

[57] I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected - Trump. starship.paint (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Lapsus linguae?- MrX 🖋 15:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

From the Times article: The original comment, a clause in one of several Twitter posts this morning, is an extraordinary admission from Mr. Trump, who has avoided saying publicly that Russia helped him win the presidency in 2016 through its election interference. R2 (bleep) 15:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Deja vu. We've seen this before. This all started with strong denials that he had any business dealings or other dealings with Russia. If we follow the pattern we've seen of complete denial-->slow admission-->full admission, but "it's okay", then the next one might be "So what if Russia helped me?"-->"Of course I accepted their help." -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Funny. Since when are Trump's tweets considered reliable sources for facts? — JFG ^talk 15:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just for his opinions. He's admitting they helped him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

And he's already recanted it. Freudian slips aren't worth including here.– Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Admission then retraction, its a nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Besides, Trump's grammar is so strange and unparseable that half the time he doesn't even really mean what comes out of his mouth. Agree, it's a nothing. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

How true. Whether we do anything with it will depend on at least two things: (1) what RS do with it, and (2) how and whether he doubles down, recants, lies, defiantly admits, twists and turns, or whatever, because his reactions often turn something insignificant into something big. The combination may end up being worth something, but right now it's best to wait. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I think he was talking about Russia helping him with a recipe for borscht. O3000 (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

plausible [58] R2 (bleep) 20:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

And just how it helped him is not well-defined. MSM has not been able to pinpoint it, either. If we're going to say Russian interference helped him get elected, we need to explain how. I'm thinking that Brazile's revelations and the Wikileaked emails about what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders played a role - but the problem we face is substantiating that it was the Russians who fed those initial emails to Wikileaks - Mueller found what he believed to be strong evidence but he said the Russians he indicted are innocent until proven guilty. We're dealing with RECENTISM here, and MSM spin which is not encyclopedic. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

First sentence

I do not agree with Onetwothreeip's edits to the first sentence here and think these changes should be reverted. However I'm at 1RR, so could someone else please do this? The phrasing of the first sentence was the product of recent talk page consensus and shouldn't be changed without additional consensus to do so. The current wording authored today by Onetwothreeip is awkward and substantively misleading as well. The Russian government's goal was not only to help Trump, but also to hurt Clinton. R2 (bleep) 15:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There have been too many intervening edits. Please look at it now and see if you still thing there's anything that should change.- MrX 🖋 16:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence should be reverted from its current wording:

Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections were activities conducted by agents of the Russian government to assist the candidacy of Republican Party nominee Donald Trump, at the expense of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, and to create social and political conflict in the United States.

To its previous wording as of this revision:

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in order to harm the campaign of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, help the candidacy of Republican Party nominee Donald Trump, and sow political and social conflict in the United States.

R2 (bleep) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the previous wording was better, and has consensus. - MrX 🖋 17:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the previous wording was better. Meanwhile, while this discussion was going on, somebody moved all the attribution (CIA, etc.) out of the first paragraph where it has been for a long time, down to a third paragraph. I have restored it to the first paragraph; this needs consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yes. No doubts, the edit by 123IP significantly degraded the language (his English is not good enough for this page) and the content. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What an absurd accusation. On the contrary, it is fairly difficult to change the wording of the first paragraph to an encyclopaedic standard, without dramatic changes which I have tried to avoid. Instead we have an analogy to farming (sowing discord) among other colloquial and media-speak terms. I've never intended on writing the final version of the opening sentence or paragraph and would prefer that others contribute to it.

Ahrtoodeetoo and others, if what you're saying is true that I removed from the first sentence about the intentions to hurt Hillary Clinton's chances, that would be simply because that's simply a function of assisting Donald Trump. The problem with the opening is that it doesn't summarise the article itself, it goes one level deeper and summarises "Russia". If we were writing an article about a football match we wouldn't start with one team beating another team, we would start with saying that a particular match happened.

Furthermore the lead should outline the three main elements of the Russian interference, which I described in the edit summary. The social media accounts, the email leaks, and the attempts at deals with figures related to the Trump campaign. I don't think this is a reflection on any editor or on the editors of this article collectively, and I think it's more an oversight and unsatisfactory compromises that have brought the article's language to where it is currently. If it really is so contentious to make these changes to the lead then I'll create a sample and bring it to the talk page, but the main point I want to get across is that these problems should be concerns for every editor and I believe that the editors here are more than capable at addressing them without having every instance being the subject of long and tedious talk page discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't much care that much about whether we say "harm Clinton" or "at the expense of Clinton", but your wording construct distances the Russian Government from culpability, which is the wrong POV to start the article with. The Russian government, including it's head, drove the election interference. Blaming it on agents is not the correct approach.- MrX 🖋 12:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, your intentions are fine. As it turns out, however, I don't think most editors here share your concerns, and your edits have created other problems. I would think it best if you propose your edits here first, even if you see them as uncontroversial language adjustments. R2 (bleep) 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There are no really any "problems" with the current version of the lead. I can't say anything about the intentions, but the edit itself whitewash the involvement of Russian government. The existing/consensus version tells the interference had happen essentially as a matter of fact. New version uses less clear language. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX I absolutely do not support opening the lead with saying that the actions were by agents. I'm pretty sure you are looking at somebody else's edits on that. Even if I had written "agents" I don't see why this has to be something raised on the talk page, as it could simply be changed to say more directly the Russian government did this. From the language perspective though, "Russian government" is not specific enough.

You're right, that was actually JFG who did that. The only way that I can think of to be more specific than "Russian government" would be to write "Vladimir Putin, Russian agents, and state-owned Russian media."- MrX 🖋 12:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo I know that editors were not sharing these concerns, this is why I raised them. I think editors here agree that we should write in a encyclopaedic way and I think they are capable of doing so.

My very best wishes No, we should make it clear in the lead that the Russian government is responsible for these actions. The lead should describe the actions primarily, and make it clear who carried out the actions. I hope you agree that it's important we should not be ambiguous as to the perpetrators and the actions now that there is beyond reasonable doubt. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

New lead paragraph

I've considered what other editors have raised and I think therefore the following first paragraph be adopted. My main concern was simply grammatical, that the subject of the first sentence per MOS:LEAD should be what the title of the article says, the interference itself. I also feel that saying in the first sentence there was an aim to hurt Clinton is unnecessary if we are saying that the aim was to help Trump, and likewise with increasing discord as simply a means to help Trump. They can also be explained in further detail elsewhere if necessary but I think the average reader would surely assume that several activities to assist someone's campaign would include things that hurt the opposition, and we can make this even clearer by introducing the hacking of the Clinton campaign in the second sentence.

The Russian government's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election comprised a targeted and multifaceted set of activities intended to assist the campaign of Republican Party nominee Donald Trump, and to prevent Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton from winning the election. 

In italics I have added words per the comments of others. I completely invite all editors to contribute.

(EDIT: per next section, I've removed the second sentence of The activities mainly comprised of social media accounts purporting to be of American citizens, and the hacking and release of information from the Democratic National Committee and other partisan organisations and individuals supporting Clinton. as a paragraph outlining the events is now the second paragraph of the lead.)

The following is currently part of the first paragraph but surely doesn't belong there. The paragraph(s) outlining the Internet Research Agency social media accounts and the hacking of emails should be more prominent and given higher priority than when these activities were announced to the public and when they were investigated. I have not altered it.

The interference activities were first disclosed publicly by members of the United States Congress on September 22, 2016, confirmed by United States intelligence agencies on October 7, 2016, and further detailed by the Director of National Intelligence office in January 2017. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Russian interference on July 31, 2016, including a special focus on links between Trump associates and Russian officials and suspected coordination between the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government. The FBI's work was taken over in May 2017 by former FBI director Robert Mueller, who led a Special Counsel investigation until March 2019.

Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Quite frankly I do not understand how these proposed changes are an improvement over the status quo. The first sentence in particular is a big step back. Putin’s primary motive was to prevent Clinton from becoming president. R2 (bleep) 04:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Mainly because the focus should be on the events themselves, with the individuals and entities surrounding them being mentioned in relation to those events. My understanding has been that the primary motive was for Trump to be president rather than for Clinton not to be, but if the latter is also the case then we can put that into the first sentence and I have updated the proposed text accordingly. I'm not presuming to know better than other editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now placed the description of interference activities right after the intro sentence. See #Logical order below. — JFG ^talk 07:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: The proposed first sentence is not an improvement. It leaves out the very essential point that Russia was trying to sow discord. "Targeted and multifaceted" are vague, and contradictory. The Russian's wanted Trump elected; they didn't want to just help his campaign.- MrX 🖋 12:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX Clearly the activities were to "sow discord" for reasons to elect Trump and prevent Clinton from winning, not aims in themselves. I'm certainly open to changing the phrase of "target and multifaceted", but they should be considered complementary rather than contradictory. I'd like to point out again that the lead sentence should follow MOS:LEAD and primarily summarise the subject, with the person(s) involved described in relation to the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sowing discord was an aim in itself. The lead sentence does follow MOS:LEAD.- MrX 🖋

@123IP. No, the "sowing discord" is the key. Why do you think they supported one candidate, but not another? Because they liked him? Of course not. They did it to inflict the maximal damage on the USA they consider as their "main adversary". That objective has been successfully accomplished - as a matter of fact. That is something old Soviet KGB was always trying to do as a part of their active measures, but could not succeed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly not obvious that a foreign government would want a certain candidate to be elected because they don't like that country and want to hurt that country. The blatant reason would be that the election of this particular candidate would help them in their ultimately financial objectives.

If there is evidence that a main objective was to create divisions in America for the sake of those divisions, that would certainly merit inclusion into the lead. I would then amend the lead sentence to the following.

The Russian government's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election included activities to assist the campaign of Republican Party nominee Donald Trump, to prevent Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton from winning the election, and increase political divisions in the United States. 

Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• No, the current wording is much closer to sources. Saying that, I think this page has one shortcoming: it does not really explain why Russian government wanted to interfere. This needs to be fixed per sources, and perhaps there are multiple explanations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead is to summarise the Wikipedia article, not the sources. Given that the divisions as an aim of the interference have been added, what objections are there? This is seriously just a matter of rephrasing the lead, so the presence of a talk page discussion about it shouldn't mislead editors into thinking that substantial changes on facts are being proposed to change. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The latest proposed wording of the first sentence seems essentially the same as the status quo, just more awkward. Once again I fail to see the benefit. R2 (bleep) 06:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-Mueller

Now that Mueller has spoken publicly, we need to clarify how Russia interfered and who exactly did the interfering, or possibly change the scope of the article. In light of what we know now, Mueller indicted 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities but he also stated they are "presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty." That leaves us with allegations; therefore, we must adhere to WP:V and WP:RECENTISM. We cannot say factually that we know anything for certain with regards to who actually committed the hack(s). An op-ed by the WSJ editorial board stated, Yet as his report shows beyond doubt, there is no evidence of a conspiracy, broad or narrow. And then there's the following regarding "Russiagate" in The Nation, which states: The long-awaited completion of Mueller’s probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative—and the expectations it fueled—to be unfounded. All the speculation and allegations are unfounded, and as such need to be removed from our article per NPOV, V, RECENTISM, NEWORG. A WaPo opinion article about the indictments of Russians who were alleged to interfere also states they are “presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty." (attribute the author). And it goes on and on. ABC News provided a breakdown of indictments and cases in Mueller's probe which was somewhat misleading because it had nothing to do with Trump-Russia collusion. They stated Those indictments have led to seven guilty pleas and four people sentenced to prison but none of it had anything to do with Trump-Russia collusion. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, specific people are presumed innocent. But, the Mueller Report still states unequivocally that the Russians interfered with the election. Nothing has changed. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. As I have pointed out more than once, the presumption of innocence applies to an individual; it does not mean we may not state that a crime occurred. Law enforcement sources will often say "this occurred and it was a crime". Examples: this was homicide, this was arson. That is not the same as saying "we allege that John Doe did it, and we have filed an indictment"; that includes the presumption that John Doe is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And whether he is found guilty or not guilty does not change the fact that a crime occurred. That's exactly what we have here: Mueller asserts, firmly, that Russia interfered in our election, and that it was a crime, and he names several ways in which Russia did it. He files indictments against some parties he thinks were part of the crime, and those individuals are presumed innocent until convicted by trial. They have not come to trial and are not likely to since they are outside U.S. jurisdiction. Regardless of the outcome with regard to those particular individuals, that does not change his assertion that a crime occurred. Trying one more time to make it clear: the individuals are presumed innocent, but Russia is not presumed innocent. Hacking occurred, targeted release of hacked material occurred, it came from Russian sources; those are facts. Fake social media accounts traceable to Russia tried to influence the election; that is a fact. SOMEBODY did those things; charged individuals are entitled to the presumption of innocence; but these things occurred. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

But...Russian interference dates back to the Obama administration according to this CNN timeline. Would you say NBC nailed it? Could it have been the fact that making the American people aware of what was actually going on in the campaign that resulted in "the ouster of the chair of the Democratic National Committee" and turned voters sour? What about was discovered in the internal Clinton communications, or in Podesta's hacked emails? NBC stated, "The lack of urgency and attention to that interference remains, in many ways, the real scandal." CNBC gives a bit more info but are we to believe that some derogatory memes and a bit of propaganda on social media (FB & Twitter) overcame the multi-million dollar political campaigns by the respective candidates, and persuaded voters to not vote for Clinton? What about the articles in RS that blamed Comey's last minute announcement about Clinton's unprotected servers, etc. just before the election? How about the revelations in the Wikileaks exposed DNC emails about Sanders and how that caused the firing of the DNC chair and potential loss of Independent voters? Brazille's tell-all book corroborates some of what took place, which may explain why she joined FoxNews as a commentator. And then there's this in The Intercept: And this massive investigation simply did not establish any of the conspiracy theories that huge parts of the Democratic Party, the intelligence community and the U.S. media spent years encouraging the public to believe., and this in The Nation. Do we ignore the ongoing IG investigation, and what AG Barr said on CBS News that makes him believe senior government officials may have acted improperly to authorize surveillance of President Trump's 2016 campaign. He says that led to "spying" on the campaign.??? We have been content to speculate on the Trump-Russia collusion but now that we have Mueller's final report, and the People know they were scammed, that their politics was drowned for years by a hoax shouldn't we be updating to reflect the shift for the sake of getting the article right? Do we need a spin-off again explaining how MSM got it all wrong? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, at another location when I said you tend to defend Trump - and, I did not add but should have, to repeat right-wing talking points - you objected and asked for diffs. The above post is a good example of how you may have gotten that reputation. No, the American people were not "scammed" and this was not a "hoax". This investigation was about three things. 1) Did Russia interfere in our election? Answer: yes, and Mueller thought that was the most significant finding. So did CBS News above. (Side question Mueller did not address: did that interference influence the outcome of the election? Answer: nobody knows, and nobody will ever know; too many variables in an election.) 2) Did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russians to make it happen? Answer: not proven, so legally the answer is no (he documented several hundred contacts between the campaign and Russia, but not active participation by campaign associates in the interference). 3) Did Trump try to obstruct justice? Answer: yes, but Mueller was not allowed to call it a crime; he laid out the evidence and indicated that only Congress could make that call. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, the sources I cited - CNBC, The Intercept, The Nation, and CBS aren't known to publish "right-wing" talking points, at least not to my knowledge. The quotes I included come right out of left-leaning media. The Intercept published "People know they were scammed..." and the hoax bit - that was not a right-wing talking point. The Intercept actually has a bias that leans left. Are you accusing POTUS of a crime by saying he obstructed justice without an ounce of proof or conviction? It doesn't matter if it's Trump or John Doe on the street - I expect to see evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt and neither you nor Mueller have provided it. Mueller could have called it a crime had he chosen to say so with proper evidence to back it up - he simply could not indict. I will add that the NYTimes clarified Mueller's statement as follows: "Mr. Mueller, by contrast, stressed the gravity of the allegations against the president. Although he noted that his office did not “make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime,” he said, “the matters we investigated were of paramount importance.”" Excuse me, but in the US you are innocent until proven guilty. I find it rather perplexing that Mueller didn't extend Americans the same consideration of innocent until proven guilty that he extended to the Russians he indicted. Gee. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

First you say that Mueller didn’t indict or claim guilt. Then you claim that Mueller did not extend the courtesy of innocent until proved guilty. Yes, he did. And, nothing has changed. O3000 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(EC) RE: Mueller could have called it a crime had he chosen to say so with proper evidence to back it up - he simply could not indict. Obviously you have not been paying attention to what Mueller says. He said that accusing Trump of a crime was never an option - not just because of DOJ policy, but because it would not be fair to accuse someone of a crime if there was not going to be a trial so they could clear their name. Mueller said that explicitly; Trump's presumption of innocence remains unsullied. (You seem to agree with Barr, who says he thinks Mueller could have gone ahead and called it a crime without making an indictment - even though that would have destroyed the presumption of innocence without any formal trial, and left Trump with no format to fight the accusation.) And so Mueller pointedly did not accuse Trump of anything. What he did do was to investigate ten or eleven cases that could be construed as obstruction of justice; lay out all the evidence; list the three legal criteria for something to be called obstruction of justice; and analyze for each case whether the three criteria were met. And he stopped there. Didn't call it a crime; didn't make any criticism as Comey did with regard to Hillary ("we have decided not to prosecute, but she was extremely careless"); just laid out the evidence and indicated that according to the constitution only Congress could make that judgment. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's back-up a bit. My initial comment was not about Trump. My initial post was about Russian interference, and somehow it turned into Trump when you reiterated that I was a defender of Trump, which I do not appreciate as someone who strongly adheres to NPOV, etc. Fact: we have had 2+ years of MSM (and certain members of the Democrat party) pushing the collusion conspiracy theory which has since been proven false. There were indirect accusations that Trump committed treason, and yes, that concerns me as much as it does any other American citizen, regardless of who happens to be POTUS at the time. My politics are unchanged when I'm on Bonaire looking at candidates and upcoming elections. I want the facts. When MSM's conspiracy theories failed, the American people felt duped (per the RS I cited above), but now it appears they are being force-fed some off-the-wall, unsupported obstruction allegations based on pretty much the same lack of evidence that laid the foundation for the collusion theory (that collapsed under us). 🚩🚩🚩 If these obstruction claims are not unsubstantiated allegations, show me the evidence in Mueller's report that are worthy of an indictment or impeachment, and explain why Mueller didn't point that out specifically to Congress? How do you explain the partisanship, and the fact that only Democrats in Congress believe it? Got partisanship? We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or supporters of one political party over another. What we need are FACTS, not suspicion, speculation or unfounded allegations like what we've been living with for the past 2+ years; i.e., RECENTISM. Mueller proved there was no collusion, and no evidence to support such an allegation - the guy is innocent, period the end. Show me the evidence that supports the claim of obstruction and I will more than likely change my position. It's that simple. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've answered Atsme's struck comments [59] at their talk page. If anyone wants to discuss with me, they are welcome on my own talk page. Let's not do it here since it doesn't appear to be relevant. starship.paint (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Which was an extremely disruptive action Starship.paint, especially considering my strike and the irrelevance of it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme has told me: I ask that you please refrain from future attempts to engage me in discussions I have expressed a desire to avoid as evidenced by my strike at the article. Obviously from her response, I was wrong to engage Atsme on her talk page. I was wrong to assume that Show me the evidence that supports the claim of obstruction and I will more than likely change my position. It's that simple., even when struck, might be still true. I urge others not to make the same mistake that I did, as it is not productive for anyone. starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In my view I t is generally a mistake to post anything on Atsme’s talk page. R2 (bleep) 00:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

We keep hearing over and over how something called the MSM has been pushing a collusion conspiracy. Well, the only folks I've heard talking about a collusion conspiracy are Trump and right-wing media. Trump has said “no collusion” hundreds of times. RS have been focusing on Russian interference in the election, and yes they have talked about the myriad, unusual contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign, as is their job. I realize that Trump and alt-right sites keep pushing the concept that something called the MSM was proved wrong. But, I've never actually heard RS say there was "collusion". This is a classic strawman argument designed to deflect from the enormous damage done to Trump by what the Mueller Report actually says. And you continue to push this narrative. This article must, and does, concentrate on the Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Mueller Report states that it existed backed up with a large body of evidence. O3000 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The same could be said in reverse, O3000. I highly recommend that we all simply stick to the facts and pay closer attention to what the acting AG is saying. I've already provided multiple RS regarding the so-called collusion conspiracy theory, and have reached the point of WP:DGAF. Thank you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

What could be said in reverse? I am sticking to the facts. Mueller and a large number of attorneys spent two years investigating the subject of this article and wrote a 448 page report. I think RS reporting on that investigation is more on point to the subject of this article than someone not involved in the investigation. Let's stick to Russian interference in the 2016 election, and not a collusion conspiracy conspiracy and what Trump calls "18 killers" and "some of the worst people on the planet". O3000 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I will unwatch this page after answering your question O3000. Your response to me is somewhat close to what I said above regarding Russian interference, with the exception that the focus/scope of this article appears to focus more on Trump-Russia collusion and the Mueller report than it does Russian interference, and that is what gives rise to concerns about UNDUE and scope. The article by CNBC is quite clear regarding the results of the Mueller investigation (as are multiple other RS): "The special counsel investigated whether or not the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian interference in the 2016 election." The result was that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy or coordination. If we're sticking to facts, then anything beyond Mueller's findings is speculation/allegation, and not based on facts. WH Attorney Flood (who represented former Pres Clinton) responded to the attempts to conclusively find Trump innocent as follows: ...that conclusively finding innocence “is never the task of the federal prosecutor.” Instead, prosecutors complete their investigation and ask a grand jury to decide whether or not to seek charges. Conclusively finding innocence is not how the American legal system works, period. Mueller did reiterate innocent until proven guilty but for some reason, he failed to include Trump in his statement which is why so many see it as political. Flood also said that certain passages in the Mueller report “can be understood only as political statements”. Regardless, this article is about Russian interference, and should not focus so much on the Mueller report, and that was the point I was trying to make. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the 20 sections is about Trump, plus a small sub-section. The article does not concentrate on Trump, makes it clear that no collusion was proved, and certainly cannot ignore him as he won the 2016 election. As for Flood, I certainly don’t think we should use a WH lawyer as a guide to reading the Mueller Report. O3000 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• I am opposed to softening verifiable statements about election interference merely because the U.S. justice system treats defendants as innocent until proven guilty. I am also against removing well-covered allegations merely because an investigation did not bear them out. When high-profile allegations are verifiably debunked, we say so, citing reliable sources. We do not remove the allegations outright. R2 (bleep) 17:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Our policy here is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures, not US law. Legal implications are only a small portion of this page. Also, saying (as Atsme) that "If we're sticking to facts, then anything beyond Mueller's findings is speculation/allegation, and not based on facts" is absolutely wrong. There are numerous facts not considered in the Mueller report, and this page is not about his report, it is much wider. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)