Talk:Trump Tower meeting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merger proposal

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

---

The recent deletion discussion for this article was closed after the nominator withdrew due to his issue with title and content of article be fixed. At the time of closing from what I saw there were 11 keep votes and 11 non-keep votes(6 delete and 5 merge), along with one merge/keep. I don't feel it's necessary to nominate for another deletion discussion at this point. I feel a merge/redirect would be best as it is just a part of the ongoing story of Links between Trump associates and Russian officials which in itself is a part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. We can probably wait a week to see if there is more to this story before actually merging, and hopefully we can get a consensus on talk page of what to do. 16:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiVirusC, I think a more appropriate merge is Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Controversies. A section on the Trump Tower meeting - a paragraph or two comprising the most stable information acknowledging that a meeting took place that gave rise to conspiracy theories about potential Russian collusion, yada yada. We need to avoid all the media speculation, conspiracy theories, and propaganda and include only those facts that are supported by substantial evidence. Since this article is still in the NPP queue, I may just do a merge/redirect tomorrow. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I know you have very strong views about this subject, but please don't use an unrelated process (NPP) to try to circumvent an emerging consensus (or at the very least, a lack of consensus to merge or delete). It was very inappropriate for you to unreview this article. I'm sure it's not what was expected when you were granted the new page reviewer privilege.- MrX 11:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX, this isn't about "my views" rather it is about a new article presented by a new editor. The article happens to involve a policy issue and is currently under review by NPP because when the merge tag was applied, it automatically marks the article as reviewed. Regardless, this article is politically charged and constantly changing which clearly puts it in the realm of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; therefore, not ready to be in article mainspace. It is filled with inuendo that supports unfounded conspiracy theories that have been formulated by MSM while they continue to dig for factual information. In otherwords, the content also fails WP:V. WP also has the responsibility of not spreading false information against a WP:BLP, regardless of whether or not they are public figures. This article clearly falls under several policies, including WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and anyone with any editing experience knows that WP doesn't promote conspiracy theories or advocacies. I've tried to make the article worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedic but the speed of new information and developments in this case will not allow for a stable article. Furthermore, the way it was initially presented read more like a plot to a spy thriller. In closing, I do not appreciate your attempts to denigrate my rights as a NPR; therefore, I am pinging Kudpung and Primefac to review this case for the reasons I mentioned above, and because of the number of new users involved in the AfD, as well as in this merger. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully Atsme, your claim that this article "is currently under review by NPP" is false. You unreviewed it for reasons that are outside of the scope of new page review. Your opinion that this article is a conspiracy theory by the media, innuendo, nothingburger, etc. does not align with the vast preponderance of reliabel sources and, moreover, are not valid reasons for unreviewing an article that has previously been reviewed, and plotting to merge/redirect it without a lack of consensus to do so. Feel free to ping whomever you like, but I stand firmly by my original comments.- MrX 14:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX, then we can agree to disagree. There are new revelations breaking daily, including the information I edited in to resolve the weight issues. It never should have been allowed into mainspace based on the policy violations alone not to mention the fact it was initially written to appear like a spy thriller movie. The article is noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. As I stated at the delete discussion review, consensus was to merge, and I would certainly support a merge over leaving the article in mainspace because I consider it an embarrassment to everything WP represents, and I'm speaking as an unbiased editor who is and always has been focused on the quality of our articles and the integrity of this encyclopedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The presidential campaign section already has a "too long, please split into separate sub-articles," tag on it, but regardless of that, while the meeting happened during the campaign, the actual controversy didn't happen during it, so I don't feel like that is the appropriate place. The rise of "theories" as you call them happened before this knowledge was out there, so it didn't give rise to it, it's just part of the ongoing list of Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, hence why I prefer that for the merge. Regardless of who the media claims the people who attended are, or who the attendees of meeting claim they are, Trump Jr.s' email that were released show that he believed he was going to meet a Russian official. There is no speculation or propaganda there. If not the links article, then the Russian interference page would be next best target, as Mueller is investigating the emails and the meeting in respect to that. All options are available, this was just the best one I felt, so I voted for that. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiVirusC, I borrowed the "theory" context from the NYTimes headline: Conspiracy or Coincidence? A Timeline Open to Interpretation, ironically as they create their own conspiracy theory in an effort to influence the public into believing their "interpretation". There has not been any evidence of any "collusion" from the get-go and there was nothing illegal about the meeting Trump Jr. attended. WP is an encyclopedia, not a political advocacy or newspaper, and it's shameful to jump aboard the political bandwagon as advocates of whatever the MSM is reporting (and retracting) based on anonymous sources, speculation, blatant misinformation, propaganda, hype, and yes, conspiracy theories. We certainly haven't allowed it in prior elections and there's no reason to allow it now. Editors are supposed to leave their biases at login so you can imagine my dismay when I first read this article. It seemed more like it followed WP:MOSFILM and butchered WP:WORDS, not to mention noncompliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V. We've helped it a bit but more needs to be done. A Harvard study has confirmed the existence of MSM bias which makes it even more important for WP editors to exercise caution regarding weight, NPOV, and V when citing a source, and we should use more inline text attribution in order to avoid editorializing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and trim to the essentials. — JFG ^talk 19:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep It is an important stand along event in which an American Campagin was willing to accept help from a foreign power. Likely has long term historical importance. Moreover, there were 11 Keep votes in a discussion that JUST closed. Can we not hold off on this for at least a few days?Casprings (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  As mentioned there were also 11 delete/merge votes in that discussion as well. It was closed because it was withdrawn, when issues were fixed, not because of a consensus. There is absolutely no need to hold off on simply starting the discussion about merging/not merging. As I also mentioned we should hold off on doing anything mergewise for a week. The talk page is here for us to talk about it and see if there is a consensus, which there was none in the deletion discussion. Yes there will be a long term historical importance for the Trump Campaign/Russian connection. Will it be seen as a separate significance soley for this specific event or will this event just be seen as another part of a whole conversation? Idk either as none of us have a WP:CRYSTALBALL WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Comfortably within the scope of that article while not comfortably meeting notability as a standalone article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, if it ends up being more in the furture then we can talk about having its own article. As it stands it would be inappropriate for us to opine what the long term historical importance might be. PackMecEng (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. This is not an important event by itself. 100.12.206.41 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge but not before Saturday, in case further news breaks on this. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Technically, we could just flatout reopen the AfD since you're not allowed to withdraw a nomination if there are delete !votes, but that would be pointless now. As for my reasoning: this doesn't need its own article, simple as that. SkyWarrior 23:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW. There's absolutely no reason to re-open it; a merge discussion can happen here, and there's no chance that history-deletion is an outcome. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  The AfD was most certainly not SNOW. Did you even read what I wrote, where I said reopening would be pointless? SkyWarrior 01:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep/Too soon to rethink AFD As per deletion discussion, Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections are both quite large already and have drastically different scopes. This is a time to remember Wikipedia is not paper and nothing bad happens if we have 3 good articles instead of just 2. Darmokand (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, and Oppose merge. Article has improved significantly since the AfD. In addition, there have also been independent developments, since then. Topic is notable in its own right. Sagecandor (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep: This is a major development that, after several days, has only intensified and has had more and more content building up. It's hard to say if it will be the straw that breaks the orange camel's back, but it is notable regardless and not applicable to WP:NOTNEWS. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge per my vote in the AfD. The content can be adequately placed in Links w/ Russian officials and Russian interference pages, and doesn't need its own article unless there is a substantial future criminal implication or investigation confirmed. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Weak Merge quite a bit has developed over the last several days about this incident and it is clearly notable. Comment, although it looks there will be a merge I would recommend those in the keep camp to move the current article in a draft/project space and continue to develop as time goes by, as this seems like this scandal will hang around for another week. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 01:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Change of heart. Probably a bit too extensive. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 14:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Not every single thing the NYT, WaPo, CNN, and MSNBC thinks is a big story is in fact a big story. Next week there'll be something new and everyone will forget about it, just like the Melania Trump handholding rejection incidents and the infamous Trump double ice cream scoop indulgence controversy. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You probably fail to realize it but you're actually making the opposite point from the one you intend to make. We DON'T have articles on the "Melania Trump handholding rejection incidents" or "Trump double ice cream scoop indulgence controversy". That's sort of why those links show up as RED in your comment. AFAIK such articles were never even created. And that's because THOSE really are "nothingburgers". THIS. ISN'T. Which is why if you link to Trump campaign-Russian meeting it shows up as BLUE. As it should.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Good Lord, I just noticed this outrageous reply. Yes, I know how WikiLinks work Volunteer. Thanks. Sorry the irony did a fly-by over your head. What is it exactly about WP:CIVIL that you find so puzzling and difficult to comprehend? Specifically, I mean. And that's not how you thread replies, by the way. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep given new revelations and the extensive and ongoing coverage in sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This is a whole new type of meeting that we have never seen before, esp. in terms of its explosive contents. So it deserves an article by itself. If more similar meetings are discovered, then maybe we can merge them with this page. --Smghz (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note - the proper thing to do is to alert the participants of the AfD discussion. The person who made the merge proposal should've done that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that even in the time since I cast my vote earlier today, more information about this meeting has come in. For instance, the lawyer met with the DOJ. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sundayclose:, @Atsme:, @NorthBySouthBaranof:, @Baseball Bugs:, @Laurel Wreath of Victors:,@Wnt:, @KConWiki:, @I am One of Many:, @Ryk72:, @Mattflaschen:, @F2Milk:, @N-HH:. Pinging participants of afD that haven't commented here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep — Too much material to merge, more is also likely to be added. —PaleoNeonate - 10:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep (do not merge) - This subject is too extensive to be properly covered in Links between Trump associates and Russian officials or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This article documents a subject of historical importance: the first hard evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia. I would expect that more on this subject will be revealed in the coming days. - MrX 10:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX - you didn't provide any diffs for the accusation you just leveled of "evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia." Do you have any RS at all that support your claim, or is this deja vu all over again to when you made this edit? This sounds like something an opinion commentator on CNN or MSNBC may say, but not a RS. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Citation 23 in the article. Happy reading!- MrX 16:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MrX, it was a great read. Especially interesting was this: "...evidence that senior members of the Trump campaign tried unsuccessfully to facilitate Russian government efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton." Big leap to your claim of "evidence of collusion." Anyway, I guess it's not a huge problem since this time we're not on a BLP page, just wanted to point out that the reasoning you gave for your vote isn't backed by RS. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

comment - Hidden Tempo I'm of the mind that, as fast as this MSM conspiracy theory is falling apart, the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER should apply which would justify a move to Draft Space where it can incubate. Perhaps a small section could be added to the Trump campaign article because it is getting media attention, but the latter doesn't necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you haven't seen it already, watch the CNN interview from this morning as it sheds even more light on this giant nothing burger. It's painful for me to see a network I once did field production for years ago to be leading the pack of rabid media raccoons. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

My head hurt after watching those two practically beg that man to give them something they can use to build a narrative. I'll back a small section to the Trump campaign article. In the last year, it seems we're moving further and further away from articles and content that is notable, but rather what sensationalist media outlets think is notable. What we have here is the son of the POTUS having a meeting (with a couple people who speak Russian) about adopting Russian babies, when he initially thought that it was going to be about information regarding possible Clinton/Ukraine collusion. That requires an entire article? Why, because NYT and CNN think this will be enough to get rid of the president? This is already way out of proportion, and if this is the standard...we have our work cut out for us with new article creation (such as the 2015 John Podesta-Mainstream Media Election Framing Dinners). Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• MERGE-REDIRECT ^{Was hoping article would've stabilized by now but I was mistaken. It's a feeding frenzy over tiny pieces of bait-click info. 19:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)}Keep Strong delete -^{The editing has created a much better and stable article as of this signing. Hope it remains stable.20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)} WP is not breaking news, and in light of all the misinformation and new revelations that are still being reported/debunked about this meeting, I am even more convinced that this article is Wikipedia:Too soon. Please don't let WP get tangled up in the media frenzy. It's embarrassing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, nothing significant has been "debunked about this meeting". Indeed, the big development was Junior tweeting out the emails confirming everything that NYT reported. You got it backwards buddy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Significant event, totally notable and the article suggested to be merged into is already lengthy. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The destination article is only 24 kB of prose, it would maybe grow to 30 kB with the material to be merged. Not a cause for size concerns. — JFG ^talk 18:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Wait while thinking of a parent article. My "Keep or Merge" vote supposed that some higher level article than this, such as Russian contacts with Trump family members, could be devised. Problem is, I haven't kept up with this enough to be eager to start such an article myself - I honestly forget whether there are enough family members involved for that to make any sense as the specific higher level article. But there is too much information here to merge into a top level Trump Russian controversy article, so it's best to think of some rational way to split that up per summary style. Meanwhile, this is such a recent event that it will be easier to work with this article now as new data comes in, then come up with a merge plan in a week or a month. I don't want it shoehorned into something very general, butchered, then we wait a year to resplit the parent article, then someone finds some stuff in the history ... we'll lose too many useful contributions in the meanwhile. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  Is the point of this article to discredit MSM, because that's the direction it's headed. I just hope WP doesn't get tangled up in it. I think there should be a 7+/- day waiting period before creating an article based on "sensationalism" and inaccurate factual information that has already done extensive damage to our once trusted outlets like CNN, MSNBC, etc. It also creates extra work when copy editors and citation checkers have to go back in and clean-up after the allegations are debunked. We should be more closely following WP:BLPCRIME because that's what the allegations entail and nothing has been produced to confirm it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"have to go back in and clean-up after the allegations are debunked" - you're just making shit up. Show me an instance where Wikipedia editors had to "go back in and clean-up after the allegations were debunked". That hasn't happened. Some stories got updated as new info has come out, which is normal, but there has been no instance where any of the stories in this realm got so "debunked" that Wikipedia had to "clean it up". This is fine, you're just scare mongering with imagined events.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait are you saying breaking news articles have not had incorrect information put in them that later had to be corrected because the sources were wrong? Surely you cannot be serious.PackMecEng (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure that's happened. So the answer to your question is "no that is not at all what I'm saying". Indeed, I explicitly say "some stories got updated as new info has come out". What I'm saying is that there's been no article I'm aware of *in this topic area* (aside from those which had been quickly deleted) where we've had to go back and change the whole article around cuz it turned out that something was a hoax. There has been no case where, to quote Atsme, we've had to "have to go back in and clean-up after the allegations are debunked". Oh and just before somebody tries it (Ryk72 is already doing it before) "story has been debunked and entire article had to be cleaned up is not the same "gosh darn it this article says something I just don't like".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what Ryk72 is already doing it before is intended to mean; but it doesn't seem as though it can be charitable. The example which I have linked below involves our inclusion of information, which was clearly misrepresentative of fact, based on claims in a source article in The Guardian (a generally reliable source); a subsequent retraction of the claims in that source article by The Guardian, and consequent clean up of our article. I can't really see how that reasonably falls into "gosh darn it this article says something I just don't like". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC) clarified - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It was a dispute about the correct wording of a single sentence. That is NOT an example of "story was debunked so we had to go in and clean up the entire article".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's just a little light paraphrasing - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Strong support for this suggestion, Atsme. I think a mandatory waiting period for article creation in this area is a fantastic idea for this current political climate. I mean honestly, what exactly is the rush? Right now there is no waiting period, so we're stuck with a bunch of hastily created trivia stubs like Dismissal of Sally Yates and almost ended up with the even sillier Last night in Sweden. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Waiting to create an article doesn't make any sense. People keep reinterpreting and debunking news reports months, years, centuries after the event! You never know what happened for sure. I think that editors who wander in with the latest newspaper and a desire to simply transcribe what it says are good solid editors. So, articles are subject to change? They're all open to change. I mean, who knew water had two liquid phases? There's no article so solid as to withstand the next report.

However, waiting to *reorganize* an article is another question again. Because we have the editors, we have the news reports, we have a flurry of activity ... we don't necessarily want to make them all chase after a moving target. And in this case, I think it's better to leave the article too specific while they build it up than not specific enough. Wnt (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your perspective is a consideration that has been hammered back and forth, but the need to protect the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia comes into much better focus when one is busy reviewing new articles at AfC and NPP. The politically inflamed will always be a sore spot on the encyclopedia because it is very difficult to keep bias out. Hopefully common sense will prevail, and the personal attacks will subside. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Weak merge with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or a newly created Russian contacts with Trump family members as suggested above and reconsider if the story develops further. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 18:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep After new details about at least 8 people being at the meeting, I feel that it's better to keep this as a standalone article. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 02:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This is ultimately going to a standalone article no matter the decision here. This is the key event around which everything that is going to happen with regard to the Trump administration will be anchored as indicated by this article in the New York Times. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you really believe what you wrote here? everything that is going to happen?? You've got a yuuuge WP:Crystal ball, man! — JFG ^talk 16:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt you to actually read WP:CRYSTALBALL, there were and, of course, there continue to be more sources establishing this meeting as notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge due to the suggested target. The meeting was with the Trump campaign, not "Trump associates". If anything, this belongs in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. But keeping it stand-alone for now is fine as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  Trump campaign has its own section in Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. So as well as Manafort and Kushner already having their own sections there. It makes sense to just add this new information to that article. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Update: keep as stand-alone, now on the merits. Highly significant event, which is being investigated by the Special Council.
• Keep for now. I'm in alignment with K.e.coffman above. I would agree with PackMecEng if mere links were the whole of it, but the larger half of this story is persistent evasion of full disclosure at every step along the way, with Kushner, especially, exposed. While the administration was denying Russian contacts on all cylinders (Trump, Pence, Huckabee, Spicer), three senior campaign people who attended that meeting silently sat on their thumbs (er, boss, what you just said on TV ... that could lead to complications). Those complications belong here. — MaxEnt 18:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thinking further about this, my preference would be two parent articles: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and Trump associate Russian-contact lies, delays, dithering, evasions, and legal peril, both of which link to a page such as this one as the shared "main article". Plus there's already Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which would have to summarize this material as well. A question to ask: can this topic reasonably be folded into any one of the above as its primary article without biasing the angle of K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)coverage? — MaxEnt 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a legitimate sub-page of Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. The "Links" page is already too long. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge This is part of a larger story but not independently notable enough for a separate article.LM2000 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per the rationales of Marek, Best Wishes, One of Many, and others. KConWiki (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. It's too soon to think of merging, in my opinion, and as My very best wishes says, the Links article is getting too long already; if we try to merge now the material will have to be separated back out down the line. I think the precipitous close of the AfD has caused this instant merge proposal, but there was even less consensus for a merge on the early-closed AfD than there was for deletion. The consensus was 12 Keep, 6 Delete, 5 Merge. My only concern about this whole subject matter is that I highly doubt that this was the only meeting (singular) of the Trump campaign and Russians; it's simply the only one that has been widely and irrefutably reported on, so far. Softlavender (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, it is currently at 24kB readable prose. That is with most of the information from this article already in there. Well below the suggested split size of 50kB. So I do not agree that size would be the problem. We should also try to avoid speculating on what the future holds for this latest news bombshell or if there are more meetings that no one knows about. If it turns out there is more there it is not hard to expand to a separate article if it is warranted in the future. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. This meets the inclusion criteria to be a separate article: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." There is no question this will impact the ongoing investigation and the political climate. It has been widely covered in diverse sources, and updates and analysis have already begun. Mattflaschen - Talk 23:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The coverage just started this past week. It's too early to clasify anything as being re-analyzed afterwards yet. Everything right now is part of the ongoing active coverage of the story. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I already !voted up above, but I'd like to add that as reporting on this event continues, it is becoming very clear that this particular event was, is, and will continue to be a watershed event in the whole "Trump-Russia" issue, so I would like to re-affirm and add that point to my initial "keep" !vote. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Do not merge The subject has plenty of coverage as a separate issue, already enough to sustain an article, and more coming out every day. And it would not be a good fit with the "links" article, which is organized into sections by individuals - but three different people were involved in the meeting. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Just a comment, coming late to this discussion: At this point I see 10 9 people arguing for "merge" and 20 21 (counting myself) arguing to keep it as a separate article. I also notice that the "merge" votes tended to be early in the discussion, while the later comments are mostly "keep" - suggesting that the subject has become more worthy of a standalone article as time has gone on and more sourcing has emerged. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I still support a merge on the merits, and believe one will happen at some point in the near future, but there's no point in doing one while a significant number of editors are collaborating constructively here. I do encourage the editors to refrain from having the article's style be "on July XX, this news story was in this paper. on July XY, that news story was in that paper." The article should be on the meeting and its fallout, not color commentary of news coverage of the meeting a year later. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep/do not merge for the time being. This has achieved significant discussion in reliable sources. After the special counsel issues his report, we may wish to revisit. Neutrality^talk 23:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as is, per Neutrality. This is a good stand alone article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Unhelpful squabbling. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP is now engaging in...ugh...hold my nose..."conspiracy theories"? Hopefully the majority of WP editors recognize the difference between sensationalism, conspiracy theories, and ACTUAL EVIDENCE before creating an entire article based on unsupported allegations, political banter and...ugh...conspiracy theories. Just sayin'....Atsme📞📧 19:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Man, I don't even understand what you're talking about. If you do a little bit of research you'll see most news articles about this meeting are perfectly accurate. Don Jr even confirmed the NYT stories. They were true. So how is this a conspiracy? This is not Infowars. Besides, media speculations about the meeting have been addressed. It's wrong to say this is false or inaccurate, because it really isn't. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Try, please try...maybe after you've accumulated more than 115 edits you'll understand. I'll try to make it easier for you by simply stating the NYTimes headline: article Conspiracy or Coincidence? A Timeline Open to Interpretation. Not hard to understand when it's a major headline. Yes, there was a meeting. So? The Russian lawyer was cleared by Loretta Lynch. So? It's a nothingburger, and all the nothingburgers are killing CNN's ratings. Let's not allow that to happen to WP. Atsme📞📧 22:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC) "and all the nothingburgers are killing CNN's ratings" - well, speaking of fake news, CNN has actually posted its highest rating in decade (though not as much of a surge as MSNBC has seen - and both CNN and MSNBC have gained at the expense of FOX) [1], [2], [3]. But hey, believe whatever you want. Just don't waste our time with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You really linked to their website as a RS for their ratings? You really need to read a variety of reports about the CNN debacle starting with the NYTimes article - I don't play political games. I follow WP:PAGs and I've already laid out the reasons why this article represents everything WP:NOT. Moving along now, I have bigger fish to fry. Atsme📞📧 01:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Fixed link I can't explain.03:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC) No, I linked to THREE different sources, as anyone with a pair of eyes can easily see for themselves, so I don't quite understand what you think you can accomplish by making such blatantly... inaccurate statements. Seriously, their ratings surge is not dispute, those are verifiable metrics... except out in the wacko-sphere part of the internet. Also, I'm not quite sure why you link to your own user page as an example of "variety of reports about the CNN debacle (sic)".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Apologies - I'm not quite sure how that happened, either, but I fixed it so it now links to the NYTimes article. Here's another link I'm using because of the cable ratings chart. My only concern is how our readers are going to digest "breaking news" in an encyclopedia when the majority is tuning out to all the foolish rhetoric and knows full well it's all about politics because no crime has been committed. The quality and integrity of WP is far more important than us getting wrapped up in battles between the media and politicians that are based primarily on conspiracy theories and circumstantial evidence which results in aspersions and childish insults back and forth - it's embarrassing and WP standards should not be compromised because of such nonsense. Atsme📞📧 03:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Yeah, first, "thefederalist" is just trash, which is why they're not a RS for... well anything. My senile grandma's got a blog that's got more reliability than that junk. There's like four or five completely idiotic things in that piece that you see within three seconds of glancing on it. Second, it doesn't show what you claim it shows - CNN's ratings are actually going up. One more time - this isn't in dispute. Ratings are measured in a standard way and they're published by independent companies. All you have to do is look at them. And yeah, CNN's ratings may be lower than Nick At Nite (which btw, is pretty awesome). But they ALWAYS have been lower. Turns out most people would rather watch old shows (they don't show Mr. Ed anymore, do they?) than news. The point is that they have been going UP. That's not that that hard to understand now, is it? The fact that you utilize this trash-source memes and talking points which are easily discredited sort of invalidates your !vote here, ya know? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Marek, The Federalist is a reputable conservative newspaper. Let's not dismiss sources simply on the basis of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. And for the record, CNN isn't only getting beaten by Nick-at-Nite, they're getting beaten by Fox News, MSNBC, HGTV, and Adult Swim[4]. People would rather watch old shows than CNN, not just "news." Folks would much rather watch Fox News over Mr. Ed, unsurprisingly. Although I'll agree that Nick-At-Nite is pretty awesome.Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC) "The Federalist is a reputable conservative newspaper" Is that a joke? The Wall Street Journal is a "reputable conservative newspaper". "TheFederalist" is just fake news trash. As evidenced by their idiotic CNN-ratings story for one. And again - this isn't that hard to understand if you just pause for a second and stop repeating far-right talking points - CNN's ratings have been going UP. Whether or not they are higher or lower than NickAtNite is completely irrelevant to whether they are higher or lower than they were this time last year. It's like if I said, "HiddenTempo, you're two inches taller today than two years ago" and you replied "nonsense, LeBron is taller than me and here is a source which proves it!". You see the difference? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC) VM, this is classic WP:JDL. The Federalist reports stories that CNN does not, which makes you think that it's fake news. It ain't. Was it The Federalist that reported pre-Comey hearing that he was expected to refute Trump's proven claim that he was told he was not under investigation? Was it The Federalist who libeled Anthony Scaramucci? Or reported the false and debunked claim that "17 intelligence agencies" came to the same conclusion about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election? Also nobody is repeating any "far-right talking points." I stated the truth about their ratings. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and everyone in between has remarked on CNN's fall from #2 to #3. No, I'll agree with that (re: LeBron/Hidden Tempo comparison) - it's two different issues. That's why I said "for the record," because it's worth noting that while CNN may have posted their "second highest quarter ever," they're still getting beat by all kinds of cartoons. It's not really something for CNN (or you) to be bragging about. See what I'm saying? Also, isn't this discussion supposed to be an AfD? How did we get on the subject of conservative media and GOAT basketball players? Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC) (ec) No, it's not "classic WP:JDL", it's classic WP:RS. It's not that Federalist "reports stories that CNN does not" - who cares? It's that they publish false and unchecked crap like in the article above. And unlike outlets like CNN (which I personally don't care much for) when it's pointed out that they're printing garbage they don't take action. CNN corrected their story and fired people. TheFederalist just jumps from one bullshit smear to another. It is LITERALLY, not just figuratively, fake news. They make shit up. Like the CNN ratings thing (note that they cite... themselves on it). They fail the criteria as outlined in WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC) VM, The Federalist didn't smear anybody (smeared noone?) with that article. They correctly stated that CNN falsely claimed that Merkel chose the G20 location and that CNN falsely attributed a quote to Abraham Lincoln. What part of that very short article is "false and unchecked crap"? Until you give a specific example, this is WP:JDL at its finest. I'm glad to hear you don't sit there and watch CNN all day, but you have to get your news from somewhere. You're clearly up to date on the latest false reports and various other bits of fake news floating out there, because you're repeating it here and virtually every AfD in this area. Sometimes you don't even source material that you add (like you did here), but I noticed that when you do it's always from a very anti-Trump outlet. I understand you not liking the Federalist, but like it or not, the Federalist, Breitbart, National Review, and other conservative RS have routinely fact checked what you call "real news," which often lead to retractions or the euphemism "corrections." Let's talk about it on my talk page (keeping it civil, of course). This has gotten wayyyyyy off topic, now. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Likewise, your claim that "the majority is tuning out to all the foolish rhetoric" is just your personal opinion (based on garbage like "thefederalist" apparently). Has a crime been committed? I don't know, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I don't care, because, this article doesn't claim that a crime has been committed. So what's your point? Same for your WP:NOTAFORUM style opinions about "conspiracy theories and circumstantial evidence". I mean, that's great, as HiddenTempo reminds us, we're all "entitled to our opinions". But the problem is that you obviously have a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. And WP:RS is one of the five pillars. So if you don't want to base your editing on WP:RS, perhaps this isn't the right venue for you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Lol come on, you can't link to WP:NOTAFORUM with a wall of text like that. And please don't try to shoo away Atsme. He's a valuable contributor here, and he is a right to make his thoughts on this article known. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Whoa! You might wanna switch to decaf. Atsme📞📧 04:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Do you need me to explain something in particular again? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I need you to stop badgering me and every other editor who disagrees with your extremely biased position. Discuss content, not editors. Atsme📞📧 04:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I am discussing content. In particular, I am discussing you labeling reliable sources as "conspiracy theories" and making false claim that their reports have been "widely debunked" when they haven't. I am discussing you making erroneous and false claims about CNN's ratings, which reflect fake news that is currently being spread around in the crazy part of the internet. I am discussing you making these content-related assertions apparently on the basis of junk sources such as "thefederalist". I am discussing your apparently contradictory attitude to Wikipedia's WP:5PILLARS which negatively affects how you approach the content of this and other articles. On the other hand you stated to another user "maybe after you've accumulated more than 115 edits you'll understand" (not that I blame you for that one - just pointing out that you're the one actually discussing editors not content).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Ha, you attack me by mentioning my number of edits and avoid the point. You still don't explain how this is somehow fake. And this has nothing to do with CNN. You're letting your own opinion on the media overtake WP policy. And if all nothingburgers get this much coverage and attention, then I wonder how huge a "somethingburger" must be. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC) @Hidden Tempo: Let me get this straight: in your mind, TheFederalist is a "reputable" source and NYT is "fake news"? It is unreal that you and Atsme are endlessly accusing editors who voted differently from you in this discussion of being biased when your own bias is very transparent. In what world is NYT a worse source than Federalist? I strongly suggest both of you read WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG. You are being opinionated and blatantly ignoring WP policy. And not to mention, you have thoroughly ignored the fact that the NYT reporting on this was completely accurate, plain and simple. But you seem more proud to believe otherwise . Really, the only thing I recommend you is to READ the source instead of what blogs say about the source.NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC) I'll help you get this straight, but I am not here to argue or debate with you. Our votes have been cast. If you feel that the NYT is a source you can trust, despite sporting an 87% anti-Trump reporting rate (and numerous false "stories", including the incessant "17 intelligence agencies" lie), then by all means get yourself a subscription. If you feel that you can't trust The Federalist, then don't read it. Free will is a beautiful thing. So instead of trying to start up a WP:Battleground and flinging WP:Aspersions at experience editors with whom you disagree, I suggest you take a breath and let the AfD run its course. It's Sunday, after all! Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Oh, I understand free will. And do not be mistaken, for I do read The Federalist, NYT, WSJ, Washington Times, and many other sources from all over the political spectrum, because, unlike some people, I do not have the habit of instantly dismissing a source because I don't like it; I do not attack the messenger, and instead analyze the news before drawing conclusions. I analyzed the NYT stories on the Trump Jr. meeting: they were, of course, correct. All sources publish false stories, yes. Most of the reliable ones retract them, too (see WP:NEWSORG). Also, all sources are biased to some degree. Per WP:BIASED, that doesn't disqualify them. There are dozens of conservative sources that have an extreme pro-Trump bias. Does that make them reliable or unreliable? No, the quality of their fact-checking does. And NYT has an excellent reputation for fact-checking, despite a few false stories (or stories you think are false) in their 165-year history. The hypocrisy of you dismissing a reputable source because it is biased for one side and embracing another source even though it is equally or more biased for another is what I find to be harmful for the encyclopedia, but oh well, it's pointless to argue apparently because you couldn't even concede that the Don Jr. NYT stories were true. I guess it would harm your pride. To conclude, for a self-described "experience [sic] editor", you could really use some reading and learning of Wikipedia's guidelines. I would start at WP:RS, WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED, which I'm again linking for you. Enjoy your Sunday! NoMoreHeroes (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Again, this is an AfD, not your own personal battleground. If you would like to engage in civil debate regarding the NYT's "excellent reputation," I invite you to my talk page and we'll have a chat. However, if you're going to do the childish personal attacks, we're done here. As a new editor, your job is to learn, discuss content (with civility, of course), and familiarize yourself with the landscape of the project in order to develop into a helpful editor. For now, please drop the stick and enjoy the rest of your weekend. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Can I borrow your WP:CRYSTALBALL sometime? I would like to play the lottery. PackMecEng (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Lol can I get in on that? Just make sure you don't get your numbers from CNN, NYT, or WaPo. I remember when everyone thought the Access Hollywood tape was "the key event around everything that is going to happen with Trump." Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Two of the best papers in the world (NYT and WaPo) are fake news solely because you don't like them? The NYT reporting here is 100% accurate. Don Jr. confirmed it. Quit the Trump-esque rhetoric and analyze NYT objectively. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC) I said nothing of the sort. Let's not go around putting words in people's mouths (it's not polite). If you would like an "objective analysis" of the NYT, Harvard University performed a highly informative study that shows what exactly it is that the New York Times and WaPo does (besides selectively retract false reporting). And I apologize for not pinging you; you have no user page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Uh, what? That "objective analysis" says nothing even close to what you claim it says. There's nothing in there about "selectively retracting false reporting". Mostly what it says is that the news media (not just NYT but also WSJ which is a conservative newspaper) spend a lot of time on Trump and most of what they published was bad. Well, duh. So please stop it with this spurious and false hijacking of the discussion. This is not the place to discuss your own personal feelings about "the evil mainstream media".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You're entitled to your opinion Volunteer, but I'm not here to debate you on what is or isn't fake news. If you promise to be civil this time, we can do it on my talk page, but this isn't the place to do that. We don't want to derail this even more than it already is, do we? Also, I'll kindly ask you not to put words in my mouth, as I just did for NoMoreHeroes.Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Yeah, I know I'm entitled to my opinion, thanks. Anyway, what you did above is 1) cite a study and 2) made a snarky comment about NYT and WaPo "selectively retract(ing) false reporting in a way which implied that the study you cited implied that that is what they do. This was completely false. So... you see, this isn't just "my opinion" (that I'm entitled to). It's actually an easily verifiable fact. The verification is done by clicking on the link to the study you provided, and reading the damn thing. And in your original comment you called "CNN, NYT, WaPo" "fake news". Quote: "Just make sure you don't get your numbers from CNN, NYT, or WaPo", where the link to "CNN, NYT, or WaPo", for those too lazy to click on it, actually takes one to the page on "fake news". Then when someone called you out on it you claimed that "I said nothing of the sort". Even though you very clearly did, as can be easily... verified, through this magic action called "reading HiddenTempo's previous comment". I'm always amazed at the people who will sit there and make clearly false statements when the proof that what they're saying is false is sitting right there staring them in the face. I guess that's what they call gaslighting. I don't know about others, but personally, I'm always annoyed and offended when someone tries to do it to me. And you have a habit of doing it a lot (see your own talk page for more examples, you know what I'm referring to). So please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I see. Well, 1) is correct. I did indeed cite the bombshell Harvard University scientific study. 2) is false. You may have inferred something, but I implied nothing. Again, if you'd like to debate the state of the mainstream media, my talk page is open if you promise to keep it civil and relaxed. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Re 1) it's not a "bombshell study", it's just a study and none of that matters anyway because quite simply, it doesn't say what you are pretending it says. You are, once again, after being topic banned for this kind of thing, misrepresenting a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Agree to disagree, yes? I think Harvard University's study is very enlightening, but you're of course more than welcome to take a different perspective. Nobody got topic banned for discussing sources, but if you'd like to dismount from the WP:SOAPBOX and debate me on my talk page, I think that would be a much better option. As long as you promise to keep it civil this time. I was scrolling through your rich and storied history over at AE/ANI, and needless to say it was quite an adventure. You're obviously very passionate about this subject (as I am) and it'd be great to have a polite conversation with someone who takes a different view. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC) No no no, that's not what happened. A user falsely accused me of referring to the NYT (87% negative Trump coverage) and WaPo (83%) as fake news because I "don't like them," which is what the "said nothing of the sort" reply came from. You misunderstood. The last three sentences were riddled with personal attacks, and considering you just fought off your latest AE beef, why not apologize and try not to turn every single page that you enter into a battleground? Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Either you didn't read the study you linked to or you didn't comprehend the content because nothing you have written above is in the study. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC) There's a third option: YOU didn't read the study. The numbers I cited are taken directly from the study. But this has nothing to do with the AfD, so let's stay on topic instead of going down another RS rabbithole. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC) No need to ping me, and I don't care for a user page. As for the Harvard study that is thrown around all the time to delegitimize the media, it doesn't prove that the NYT and WaPo are "fake news"; only that they report Trump negatively. WP:BIASED, all sources are biased to some degree, but that doesn't mean they all suck. And NYT and WaPo particularly have an excellent reputation that dates since the late 19th century. They meet the criteria at WP:NEWSORG. It really seems to me you delegitimize them because you're not particularly fond of them, but you're right, I won't put words on your mouth. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Nice apophasis. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Touché. You reached the core of the discussion, sir. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I'm well famed for my incisive powers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Just as an FYI, a lot of the keep !votes seem politically motivated. A decent portion of voters who support keeping the article have also voted keep on most other supposed anti-Trump articles nominated for deletion. I think we need a reminder to not vote based on political views. Jdcomix (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Please see WP:AGF. I didn't know reporting RS was "anti-Trump" (By the way, I !voted to merge, not keep, so maybe I'm playing the devil's advocate here). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC) @Jdcomix: If you wish to salt most of the votes, would you mind providing examples? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC) @DarthBotto: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=790179654 by User:Casprings, for example, (not trying to pick on him in particular, just one of a few examples), voted !keep here and removed relevant information regarding the Russian lawyer's denial of links with the Kremlin. The same editor has made numerous other edits on Trump-Russia articles which have questionable neutrality. Jdcomix (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, everyone, let's limit ourselves to helpful squabbling! Thanks.😜 Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Judging by the activity below the merger discussion, as well as the way the votes are now forming up, I believe the consensus is forming that this is now a Keep, albeit both sides of the spectrum are now cooperating to find a fair and balanced ground to convey the information from a neutral point of view. If it is not too bold, I would suggest that this discussion be closed and we continue productively working on this article. If there are dissenting opinions against what I am saying, we can continue discussing below this courtesy break. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge voting has stop mostly for a while, and I was originally going to request it to be closed a week after I opened it, but since there is a Deletion Review going on, I was going to wait until that is closed(prob around this weekend), before requested a non-involved preferably admin to close this. Only reason I feel like that would be best, is we had this merge discussion here as a result of the afD was closed so early and that debate didn't get to finish. Now with the deletion review being started a few days after this discussion, there are now 3 places were the delete/merge/keep discussion have happened. I am pretty sure from now to then, nothing is going to change in the results, but I figure it's best to leave it open due to the fact of it being started as a result the somewhat controversial closing of the afD. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• comment - I disagree that this article should be a stand alone for the following reasons (I chose to merge above):
  1. The Investigation section of Special Counsel investigation of the Trump Campaign's coordination with the Russian government is practically empty. This article belongs in that section because it is an ongoing investigation of a meeting that circumstances tell us had nothing to do with the campaign beyond empty promises. Not one of the allegations are proven or supported by evidence and based on it's lack of notabilty doesn't warrant a stand alone article.
  2. This comment further confirms that it should be merged. It's only notable because of the investigation, therefore it belongs in the Investigation section of the main article. This is really a no-brainer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Restart this discussion which has become obsolete. The Trump tower meeting is now firmly part of the special counsel's investigation, as of yesterday.[5] So the placement of this article's material needs to be reconsidered. This recent news suggests a merge to 2017 Special Counsel investigation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  The investigation of the meeting is part of the special counsel's investigation, but the meeting itself is a very notable subject that can stand on its own, as evidenced by the large number of available sources and ongoing news coverage.- MrX 22:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  MrX, the meeting is part of the ongoing investigation which is the only thing that gives it any notability whatsoever. All that has happened to date is a nothing-burger. We've created a timeline of nothing-burgers. There is no evidence of collusion or that it had anything at all to do with the campaign. Nothing came of the meeting. What this article represents is wishful thinking. It needs to be a simple paragraph or two under the Investigation section of the main article. Once something is proven by the special counsel, that's a different story. Then it becomes a stand alone, not now. An entirely new MERGE needs to be called, or I can always call an RfC. Which is it? I'd rather have consensus here before I call the RfC, but something has to happen. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  Atsme, I'm sure you won't be not surprised to hear that I disagree with most everything you just wrote. I guess you're welcome to start another merge discussion after this one is closed.- MrX 00:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  😂 MrX, you're correct. During all these years, have we ever been in agreement? Once or twice, maybe? In the interim, whoever has an interest in the main article should add the key points of this article in the Investigation section, since that's where it belongs. I'm currently working on NPP (with our newly organized toys) trying to get Bing Images (which is nothing more than a "feature" of the browser Bing) merged into a section of the main article. It's not a stand alone - it's a feature of the browser. Hope nobody tries to blame my suggestion on bias. Anyway, I wouldn't turn down your help there...unless you disagree that it should be merged.😳 ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  Aside from those temporary few hour yesterday, Bing Images has been merged into Bing since 2012. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Atsme: Let's just do a RfC and get it over with already. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: the Deletion Review has been closed, so we can start to think about whether this Merge discussion is ready for closure. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it is ready. A request to close it has been submitted here too. Ideally another admin who was non-involved can close it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, good, I was about to request a closer myself. I agree we need someone who is uninvolved. User:DarthBotto, thank you for requesting closure, but keep in mind for the future, such requests should ideally be neutral - rather than stating what you think the result of the close should be. (Even if you think it is obvious.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand and I apologize for drawing supposition for what was observed here. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I don't understand why no administrators have closed this stale discussion. Are there any additional ways to get attention? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Can us, the involved editors, just agree that the consensus is Keep? I think it is pretty clear that is the consensus and I just think we are seeing many non-involved editors not wanting to touch articles that relate to US politics and close these discussions.Casprings (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you are right. I'll do it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

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

"Coverup"?

This is a pretty significant development. Both Kushner and Trump Jr. wanted to be more transparent and honest, but Donald Trump ordered a deceptive version. That's described below as a possible coverup:

• Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer

"The extent of the president’s personal intervention in his son’s response, the details of which have not previously been reported, adds to a series of actions that Trump has taken that some advisers fear could place him and some members of his inner circle in legal jeopardy.

"As special counsel Robert S. Mueller III looks into potential obstruction of justice as part of his broader investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, these advisers worry that the president’s direct involvement leaves him needlessly vulnerable to allegations of a coverup."

"...“Now someone can claim he’s the one who attempted to mislead. Somebody can argue the president is saying he doesn’t want you to say the whole truth.”"

"...Trump, they say, is increasingly acting as his own lawyer, strategist and publicist, often disregarding the recommendations of the professionals he has hired.

“He refuses to sit still,” the presidential adviser said. “He doesn’t think he’s in any legal jeopardy, so he really views this as a political problem he is going to solve by himself.”

"...Because Trump believes he is innocent, some advisers explained, he therefore does not think he is at any legal risk for a coverup. In his mind, they said, there is nothing to conceal."

BullRangifer (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure if we should refer to it as a "cover-up", as it may not have been of unscrupulous intent, but it is imperative that we include Trump's directive in addressing this matter. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, Trump's lawyer has released a statement, denying his client's involvement. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• There are some important facts in that story. Need to be included and the fact that Trump was that involved is important.Casprings (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

My concern about the information in that the article is WP:BLPGOSSIP which states: "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." WaPo and NYTimes are doing that a lot lately as bait-click. When you read the article, you can see how weak it is - big let down with nothing to back it up. If the article had identified its sources, it would be a much different story but as it stands now, it's heresay with loaded claims of wrong doing, none of which is supported by an iota of concrete evidence. See WP:NOTNEWS. It's really starting to smell like Tabloid journalism. This info and some of these other WP:POVFORK articles being passed off as "spin-off" articles that don't deserve more than a few sentences in the main article actually belong on Wikisource and Wikinews. Not one...I repeat, not one law enforcement official has charged anyone with a crime. Until that happens, it falls short of being encyclopedic, and is overboard for anything but conspiratorial tabloids. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"Bait-click"? Not NYT or WaPo. They are reputable and don't engage in such practices. That their sources are anonymous is a must, otherwise their sources will get fired by Trump and they'll get no more real news of what's really going on, from the inside. If it were other sources known for clickbait practices, it would be another matter, but these are very RS which don't have a reputation for such things.

BTW, the White House's semi-admission that Donald Trump did get involved in the production of the deceptive version put out confirms that the anonymous sources were right. Trump knew that the jig was up. If the WH didn't put out some type of statement, even more incriminating details might come out. If push came to shove in a court of law (note that Trump is not threatening, or even questioning the veracity of, the leakers), the leakers might be identified and give precise and provable testimony. Trump won't risk that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing weasel about the facts they are reporting. To quote wp: " Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said that he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations." Where is the weasel in the reporting?Casprings (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Casprings read the policy again. It clearly states and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Forget the weasel words part. Who are the sources providing this information? Oh, what? They're anonymous? Hmmmm. Read NOTNEWS, too. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme Could you maybe take the rhetoric down a notch? The Washington Post and the New York Times is not the tabloid press, but rather reliable sources. So yes, we can be wary of an article if it quotes an anonymous source, and yet use it. Lklundin (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Lklundin, rhetoric according to whom? Please focus on content and not editors. Read the policy WP:NOTNEWS. Just because something is published in a bait-click, conspiratorial tabloid manner as what this source has done (and has been doing) the encyclopedia doesn't have to include it. It is not even the slightest bit encyclopedic as it is nothing but "allegations" by anonymous sources. The encyclopedia should not fall victim to inclusion of such hogwash bait-click sensationalism. It doesn't hurt for editors to refresh their memories about WP:BLP, particularly Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. Do I also need to provide a link to the Harvard report? Perhaps an RfC to gain consensus would be appropriate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme Your insistence on describing the Washington Post and the New York Times as 'tabloid' and their material as 'bait-click' and 'conspiratorial' is an unconstructive rhetoric. Given that your cited Wikipedia policies in this thread can so easily be shown to not apply, you come off as someone who just throws Wikipedia policies around in the hope that something will stick. You are thus not helping to improve the article. Lklundin (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

They aren't anonymous to the WP. They are unreported. The whole of the policy states,

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

By every standard of Wikipedia, a paper with a reputation and amount of peer awards (47 Pulitzer Prizes) is the absolute gold standard for WP:RS in reporting (obviously there are things outside of Journalism, like peer reviews)

This isn't gossip. This is reporting from a paper that has been dead on. Moreover, when it isn't dead on, we can expect corrections. Casprings (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I just rolled back 2 edits cited to a personal FB page that reported the WaPo article. Unbelievable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It originates from anonymous people with claims that rival the best conspiracy novels I've ever read. And then we have an editor source it to a personal FB page? I'm of the mind that this article may need protection from this ridiculous frenzy. Encyclopedias are WP:NOTNEWS and to include allegations from anonymous sources that are nothing more than heresay IS gossip. RS make mistakes, too. Regardless, I've already pointed to POLICY that warns against it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This material is highly relevant to the article. It helps build a fuller picture of the non-stop falsehoods that emanate from Trump's circle.- MrX 16:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, let's drop the "coverup" and "non-stop falsehoods" rhetoric, and stick to the reported facts here. I see we currently have a sentence/paragraph about this in the "Disclosure" section. I was actually intending to add something to the "purpose" section, where we already say that the memo was prepared by White House staff and approved by the president. Now it turns out that was incorrect, and we have the modified information that staff advised transparency - putting all the information out there up front - but were overruled by the President, who instead dictated an incomplete version of what happened, which was then released in Jr.'s name (and of course was quickly disproven and had to be corrected, as always happens in such cases). I think the earlier "prepared by staff" and the new "dictated by the president" material should be combined into one place. Should that be "purpose" or "disclosure"? --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was very serious about "non-stop falsehoods", which is at the nexus of this whole debacle. I don't think it's rhetoric to reflect a characterization given by sources— sources that are using words like "cover up", "highly misleading", "presidential dishonesty", and "lies". Those are facts. Let's please not suppress legitimate discussion on this talk page.- MrX 19:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

So do you have an opinion about where to put this new information? --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Its current location under disclosure is OK. 'Background' would be a good alternative. Topically, it doesn't really fit under the heading 'purpose'.- MrX 19:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I moved the previous reporting into the paragraph in the "disclosure" section, to put it all in context. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's do differentiate between tabloid speculation and undisclosed sources. As of this morning, Sarah Huckabee Sanders has confirmed that President Trump was involved in the statement, though she claims it was more advisory than directional. This is now an integral component of a page with subject matter that has turned out to be hugely notable. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Excuse me, MrX, but those are not facts. They are allegations - the sun sets in the west is a fact - so please get your facts straight. Worse yet, they are allegations made by anonymous sources and BLP policy is very clear how we present allegations and I again point to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so please be careful of the wording. Trump is still a BLP regardless of how anyone feels about him, and with that in mind, we must be true to WP:PAGs. We don't use IAR when a BLP is involved, so please read the articles in their entirety. Per WP:NEWSORG Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. I'm not comfortable that there's been an adequate amount of examination being done here. Policy also states: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The "facts" that we do have are: The statement attributed to Trump Jr. was created aboard Air Force One; Trump was involved in creating it (that has actually been confirmed now by the White House); there is one Reliable Source report that he actually dictated it; that is presented in the article immediately followed by another statement that he didn't; that is standard Wikipedia practice. I don't know what specific facts you are describing as "allegations". Don't worry, we are not going to put anything about "non-stop falsehoods" in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. We can document this series of events, the outright lies, the denials, the forced admissions, and the complete change from beginning deceptive versions to final "incomplete" explanations, without necessarily being honest and describing them as "non-stop falsehoods", even though they obviously are. The RS do call them "cover-ups" and lies, emanating right from Trump at the top. As we have always suspected in all these dealings, Trump is true to form. He allows nothing without his direct involvement. He does pull all the strings. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I have fleshed out that content with some important details from the WaPo source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Grand jury subpeonas

It has been reported by several news agencies, first and foremost The Wall Street Journal, that a number of grand jury subpeonas have been issued by the Special Counsel. Now, before we get into an edit war, I'd like to state that I believe this should be on the page, though one or two will say that since the sources are unidentified, it will be tabloid journalism. I wouldn't agree with that assessment, but I will be completely behind the grand jury subpeonas being introduced under the Special Prosecutor section. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it tabloid journalism. I'd just wait a couple days. Objective3000 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ is an extremely reliable source, and is certainly the most trusted newspaper in the country (total opposite of tabloid journalism). Ordinarily I'd be wary of anonymously sourced stories, but the Wall Street Journal hasn't given the public a reason to distrust its reporting. As far as I know, WSJ wasn't entangled in any WikiLeaks revelations last year (aside from a few invites to the secret Podesta dinner). This material could (and probably should) be carefully added, and properly attributed to the WSJ, as I believe no other media outlet has yet independently verified this information. Perhaps two sentences would be sufficient. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Grand jury issues subpoenas in connection with Trump Jr., Russian lawyer meeting Casprings (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've implemented a short sentence under the special prosecutor investigation subsection. I anticipate this will be challenged... considering that everything on this page has been challenged. So, let's have an open discussion. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think your sentence is fine, but I'd like to add "in the District of Columbia", since Moeller inherited an existing grand jury investigation in Virginia - so that suggests this is something new. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• In my view the existence of the investigation is appropriate, but the subpoenas are not noteworthy. Subpoenas are a routine part of any federal grand jury investigation. As a community we tend to get hung up on this sort of recentism. The only reason it's making the news is because there's a vacuum of publich information about the investigation, and everyone wants to know the latest details. But ten years from now, heck, ten months from now, no one will care about the fact that the investigators issued subpoenas; all we will care about are the revelations. Or, perhaps the subpoenas will be resisted and that will become noteworthy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Though I can understand where you're coming from with recentism, I don't think the little detail given about the Mueller stuff really applies. It's relevant, short and sweet-- no opinionated biases included from what I can see. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The congressional investigations section is a little excessive I can say. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Right; makes one wonder whether Congress has any time left to pass laws. Oh wait, they don't… — JFG ^talk 00:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn’t report on every action. Of course the GJ issued subpoenas. That’s what it’s for. Objective3000 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Drop the cite to WSJ. Since Reuters covers the material, listing a WSJ page behind a paywall is both not helpful and not necessary. WP:SOURCELINKS indicates "If the source only exists online, give the link even if access is restricted (see WP:PAYWALL)." But WSJ is not the only source so can be dropped. Markbassett (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've implemented both the suggestions that you and MelanieN had. What you said is very valid for a number of reasons- the most major being that it's hugely inconvenient. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

p.s. another source mentionging WSJ gave it as a more open link here.

• Dissimilar report and better WSJ URL - Think I've got two additional URLs for this line: A somewhat different story at ABC is saying Mueller may be using a previously existing grand jury, not a special grand jury that he impaneled. Most mentions I see elsewhere seem to be simply phrasing it as 'the WSJ reports that', and I saw that linked to a different and more-open WSJ URL as the one this is related to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Good point. This was the "announcement" of the impaneling the Washington, D.C. grand jury, but not its "creation". It had quietly (secretly?) existed for a few weeks. One source I read (but of course can't remember now) said two weeks. It would be nice to have a RS for the actual creation of the grand jury, not just the delayed announcement. BTW, was this announcement originally a leak? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

WSJ....Some Trump Lawyers Wanted Kushner Out

The meeting is mentioned several times in this RS:

• Some Trump Lawyers Wanted Kushner Out, WSJ

BullRangifer (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson?

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

---

Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson, similar to the proposed text below?

On July 21, 2017, a subpoena was issued to Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and ranking Democrat Feinstein after he refused to testify. He then agreed to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee behind closed doors, and the subpoena was withdrawn. The committee wanted to question Simpson about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which they can use "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to the Trump campaign or the Russian government." Grassley and Feinstein tied the Fusion GPS's foreign registration issue and the Trump Jr. meeting together "by calling on Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort to testify at the hearing." Simpson said that the firm collaborated on a lawsuit with Veselnitskaya for two years, but denied any "untoward connection". Simpson will not testify at the public hearing, but instead will be interviewed privately, under terms of an agreement. Browder testified before the Committee on the Judiciary on July 27, 2017, claiming that Veselnitskaya was representing the Kremlin's interests in the meeting, which was arranged for persuading the future lifting of the Magnistky Act.

References

- MrX 15:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

---

• Support it's a significant development. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTNEWS. I fail to see how this is anything more than routine evidence gathering. There's no attempt here to connect Simpson or FusionGPS to the meeting that's the subject of the article, beyond the fact that they used to work with one of its participants. In fact, the cited sources make clear that the reason Simpson was subpoenaed had nothing to do with the meeting. I understand the temptation to feast on every breadcrumb of this mysterious and enticing story, but that's more Reddit than Wikipedia. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman see this article, one of many that shows the connection. The media made the connection, and even more revelations have come forward in Browder's testimony on July 27, 2017 regarding the Russian connections among the parties at the Trump Jr meeting and Fusion GPS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a meaningful connection made in that article. All it says is that Simpson and one of the meeting participants were both accused by Browder of failing to register under FARA. That's encyclopedic how exactly? Please explain the connection in your own words. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll try, DrFleischman - the primary connection is Veselnitskaya. Fusion GPS (who did opposition research on Trump) was working for the law firm Baker-Hostetler who was representing Prevezon. Veselnitskaya was Prevezon’s lawyer. Trump team lawyers connected some dots, and now believe the June meeting was somehow a planned deception by Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS (in my own words) to frame Trump Jr. et al by luring them to the meeting, then making it appear as though they were colluding with Russian operatives. In other words, the Trump legal team saw it as where there is no dirt - create it! So they suckered-in the politically inexperienced son of a politically inexperienced candidate. WaPo and others have indicated something along that line, although Fusion GPS adamantly denies the connection..but then, so does everyone else who has been accused in this long drawn-out affair.^{Atsme📞📧} 23:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but now you're just making shit up. You're not suggesting that we include that stuff in our article, are you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am offended because I did not make it up. Maybe you need to read more. I may have used my own words but the information came from more than one RS. Good day to you, too. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

^{^^DrFleischman^^}

Then provide sources please. You can't expect me to take you on faith for all of thoe assertions, and if there's a meaningful connection between the proposed content and the article subject, then it must be included. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman above you asked me to, "Please explain the connection in your own words." I thought that's what I did but if you now want me to cite sources, no problem - NYTimes and Browder revelations in this discussion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the NY Times source you provided and it does not verify your so-called connection in any way, shape, or form. If you'd like, we should take this to user talk, because I would really like to be convinced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include some of it, not all. We should mention the committee investigation, including the comment from the congressman that the hearing might yield information about this June meeting, and the information about who testified. None of the other stuff, which is starting to resemble a game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon - such as, Fusion worked on a lawsuit that Veselnitskaya also worked on. I don't find Browder to have any relevance to this article, and we don't need play-by-play reports about the issuing and withdrawing of subpoenas, just the final result. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

We should mention the committee investigation, including the comment that the hearing might yield information about this June meeting... Might or might not; isn't this unverifiable speculation? I mean even Diane Feinstein said this is will not be the focus of the committee's questions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It may be speculation, but it's speculation by the people who have the power to request and/or subpoena testimony. Their comments about why they are requesting it can be relevant. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Highly relevant to the article and the length of the material is pretty much on target for DUE compliance. This whole thing almost assuredly doesn't pass WP:10YT, but if it's going to be a standalone article, the Fusion GPS investigation needs to be covered. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Not seeing anything that says Fusion has any direct link to the events of June 9, just six degrees of Natalia Veselnitskaya. Would be synth/undue to include here at this time. Darmokand (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Based on the reliable sources I have seen, the link is at best tangential. Of course, in the future there maybe a more substantial link, but we simply don't know yet.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is indeed very tangential, only as a mention, not as a real connection worth discussing here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that source. After reading it, I find nothing I haven't read before. As I wrote, the connection is very tangential: "That case put Simpson on the same side as the two Russians who met with Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner at Trump Tower in June 2016,..." Is there something else in that article which makes the connection stronger? Was he there? Did he provide research for that meeting? We can't include everyone who is related to someone at the meeting, or has the same interests and POV as those at the meeting, or whose grandmother once knew the grandmother of someone at the meeting. That source would be better used at the Fusion GPS article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer the NBC News article explains the connection quite well and it's not tangential - according to RS, it's about Russian government interference in a US election by paid agents who met with Trump Jr. et al to lobby for a repeal of the Magnitsky Act under the pretense they had dirt on Clinton. The connection to the meeting is again made in the WaPo article which states: "Grassley’s interest in Fusion GPS is not solely about the Magnitsky Act. On March 27, he wrote to Fusion GPS to demand information about the Steele dossier and the FBI’s relationship to Steele." The Magnitsky Act is the clear connection to the Trump Jr. meeting because Fusion GPS is connected to the lawyer and the lobbyist who attended the Trump Jr. meeting. Like everything else in this article, it's all based on speculation and allegations, but the Senate Judiciary meeting is as relevant to this article as are all the other allegations. In fact, I wouldn't object to this entire article being reduced to a single paragraph and merged with the main campaign article because the majority of it is based on allegations and conjecture, and it's not easy keeping WP:UNDUE out of it while still maintaining WP:BALANCE which the Senate Judiciary meeting actually helps provide. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme: Special counsel Robert Mueller and his crew disagrees with your assertion that "this article, it's all based on speculation and allegations", so your attempt to discredit it and seeing "this entire article being reduced to a single paragraph" is not working. Please try something more constructive. Lklundin (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Lklundin I didn't realize Mueller & crew were reading my assertions. They should have posted their disagreement to save you from speculation and conjecture. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I am still unconvinced that there is anything more than a tangential connection. Others here agree. I'm not changing my "oppose". Things may change in the future. If so, we can return to this subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok...I'm stocking up on eggs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Not relevant in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems a bit non-sequiturish to me. It takes a fair amount of mental gymnastics (which seems like OR/SYNTH) to tie this into the subject of this article. Something like this little pile of information seems to belong somewhere else, like an article on Simpson, on Fusion GPS, on Veselnitskaya, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, or on the Trump-Russia allegations. It seems too tangential for this article. Maybe even hold off on it entirely for any wiki article until some clear(er) allegation/connection is made.Softlavender (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Someone is going to be questioned belongs in a newspaper. If something comes of this, then it may also belong in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS. Objective3000 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as it seems WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE speculation. Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The entire article should be deleted per NOTNEWS. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

^{Chris troutman - tried and failed - but I agree with you re:delete; possibly merge. Not going to happen anytime soon, so now it's about just trying to maintain some semblance of balance by including relevant information, although I liken it to a root canal. Atsme📞📧 18:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)}

• Comment Hi all. I've received a RFC summons. I find myself in much agreement with the various notions against the material inclusion. This is because I also see the material as tangential, speculative and NOTNEWS. Perhaps the idea to possibly delete the article is worthy of further discussion. Know I neither oppose nor propose deletion. I do believe the idea is worth discussion. It is good to see the many thoughtful comments by so many contributors. And I fully understand the root canal analogy. Sorry for you.Horst59 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed text, support a short mention. This paragraph of text, if it belongs anywhere, should be at the Glenn R. Simpson page, not this one. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: A lot more stuff has come to light regarding Fusion GPS and Simpson in relation to the Trump-Russia investigation overall since this RFC was opened. Therefore I think the information (and the new information I've seen -- don't ask me for sources; it's material I've seen posted on Twitter but I didn't save any relevant links, so someone would need to do a timeframe Google search to get the newest media reports) should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia (the Trump-Russia article, the article on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the article on Mueller's Special Council, etc.). I'm just not sure yet that it belongs in this article unless better context can be given that it specifically belongs here. Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:NCE for article title

This article probably needs to have at least "2016 June" in the title, per WP:NCE. So, I dunno, "June 2016 Trump Campaign - Russian Lobbyist-or-lawyer-or-something Meeting (Trump Tower)"... maybe we should wait and see if this meeting gets a name that sticks. Lemme just throw a few throw out: The "I love it' Meeting, The "We Just Wanted to Adopt Hillary's Emails From Russia" Meeting; and "The Nyetburger Meeting". --AdamG (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If there are more then one, just make it meetings instead of meeting. All in one article.Casprings (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest Trump–Veselnitskaya meeting. Short, unique, and to the point. We already have a redirect from Veselnitskaya meeting pointing here. — JFG ^talk 12:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

When Papadopoulos joined the campaign

@Enthusiast01: We have been differing over when Papadopoulos joined the Trump team. My sources all say it was in March, with one suggesting it was early March, and all sources agreeing that Trump announced him as a member of the foreign relations team on March 21 - so he obviously joined the team sometime before that. You have added to the article that there is "one source saying it was in May". That cannot possibly be right. The same Newsweek article you cited refers to him sending "internal campaign emails" in March and April. That article uses Papadopoulos's Linked-in account as its source for May - but that Linked-in account is notoriously wrong on a lot of things. Please self-revert your addition of "May" as it is contradicted by all other sources including Donald Trump himself. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it. It was one not so great Newsweek source claiming May, while all other sources suggest that he left the Carson campaign in Feb 2016 and joined Trump in March. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sentence recently added to lead paragraph

I disagree with this edit, which was accompanied by this edit summary: "Revert wholesale removal, not removal of wiki links as stated in summary".

The new sentence jammed back into the lead is as follows: "Several members of the Trump campaign have been convicted or indicted as a result of these meetings, including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, and Paul Manafort."

When I removed it, this was my edit summary: "Rmv overlink, these people are discussed and wlinked later in lead. Gates & Manafort seem to be indicted for meeting and working with Ukrainians not Russians. Flynn was not indicted for meeting with Kislyak but for mischaracterizing the meeting, AFAIK." So the problem was not merely overlink. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Bannon comments

Would everyone be fine with adding the following in the lead? It has got a significant and overwhelming amount of attention, has been confirmed to be accurate by Bannon himself, and is extremely notable.

In January 2018, former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart CEO Steve Bannon stated that the meeting was “treasonous” and predicted that the Mueller investigation would cause Donald Trump Jr. to "crack... like an egg on national TV.”

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganWoodShop (talk • contribs)

No. See the previous section.- MrX 03:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pedantic note: the book will be published in January 2018. The statement came from sometime in 2017. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Not even in the article, and fergawdssake not in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A bit muddled...

Enthusiast01, thanks for this series of edits. A real improvement. There is still some work to be done, because the sequence is a little bit muddled. Would you please take a look at it and make this sequence a bit clearer?:

1. Papadopoulos has romantic encounter with woman
2. He tells her about the emails
3. She then tells Downer about Papadopoulos and the emails
4. Downer arranges a meeting with Papadopoulos
5. Papadopoulos tells him too

BullRangifer (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree the sequence is somewhat disjointed. I was trying not to use my own sequence into the narrative, so as to constitute OR. I’m sure that when the story unfolds these connections will become clearer. Enthusiast01 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That material seemed to be in two places - "Background" and "Papadopoulos meetings". I have combined it all into the Papadopoulos section. Please feel free to tidy up or clarify. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It's better now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WTF? Editor claims the Flynn/Pap/Gates/Manafort indictments are "unrelated" to the Trump-Russia meetings? WRONG!!!

Explain yourself, editor!!

1. Flynn and Pappy were indicted for LYING TO THE FBI ABOUT THE MEETING, so the statement that they were indicted and convicted as a result of the meeting is strictly true, and your claim that it "isn't actually true" turns out to be false. 2. Manafort and Gates are indicted for a multiple host of crimes, yes, but these crimes are related to their being agents of a foreign government and resulted from the investigation into these meetings.

Hence, the statements were true. The Consensus Has Spoken (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Consensus. You don't have to SHOUT; I can hear you.

• Manafort and Gates were indicted for their actions related to Ukraine in 2011-2014. [6] The FBI has been investigating them for several years, long before the special counsel was appointed. Their indictment is not related to Trump campaign-Russian meetings, which is the subject of this article. It is already detailed in the article about the special counsel and of course their own articles.
• Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about telephone conversations (not meetings) with the Russian ambassador. [7] There is nothing about those conversations in this article, so this is out of place here.
• Pappadopoulos admitted to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a professor and a Russian woman.[8] Those contacts are part of this article, and his guilty plea is detailed in the article text. That is the only one of the four that relates to this article, but it doesn’t have to be part of the lede sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your reply. The Consensus Has Spoken (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"indicted and convicted"? Indicted...yes. Convicted....not yet. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Flynn and Pappadopoapolapoloapous both pleaded guilty. A guilty plea constitutes a conviction, entirely the same as does being found guilty by a jury. So, yes, convicted. The Consensus Has Spoken (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Not in the USA. It will result in a conviction, when that time comes. That's certain. After the trial, then one can say "convicted". A judge must rule, and that hasn't happened yet. If they stop cooperating and/or don't produce the evidence they promised they would, they could be charged with more crimes and much more serious charges and end up being convicted for much worse crimes. Time will tell. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in the USA. They pleaded guilty, a judge accepted the plea, that settles it. There will be no trial; they are already convicted of this single charge. If they don't cooperate or don't produce the evidence they promised, they will almost certainly be charged with additional crimes. If they do, the sentence for this one conviction will be light, or will be waived altogether. That's how plea bargains work. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I wasn't aware there had been a trial. When did that happen? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked as yet another sock of Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Bannon says in explosive book

Important to add. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff Casprings (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a headline grab for his new book. Give it a few days to see what sticks. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Bannon's opinions are not particularly noteworthy. I know the media is excited about this particular bit of sensationalism, but it's not really encyclopedic.- MrX 19:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Funny, nobody has mentioned the new book at the Steve Bannon article. Isn't that the logical place for it? --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not even sure how logical it is there. Certainly isn't here. If Mueller's opinion is that the meeting was treasonous, that would mean something. (BTW I created the article for the book.) – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This has gotten a lot more press coverage than Mark Corallo's remarks, which are currently discussed in the article. Bannon is now saying he was referring to Paul Manafort, who also attended the meeting [9]. ^Falling_Gravity 08:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Continued focus if Mueller

I think this is important to add. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/politics/trump-russia-hope-hicks-mueller.html Casprings (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Another meeting

Needs adding: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/us/politics/trump-campaign-page-russian.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I just added this section HonorKnight (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Cited material deleted from the article

On or around June 9, prior to and following the Trump Tower meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, ostensibly related to hearings that involved their mutual client Denis Katsyv, concerning charges of Russian tax fraud and money laundering originally uncovered by Magnitsky. The Simpson-Veselnitskaya meetings were denied by Veselnitskaya herself but confirmed by Simpson's lawyer

References

This has just been removed: [10]. I support its inclusion. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

On what basis? The original reason for its removal was "No real relation to the meeting" in Trump Tower. That has not changed. Just because Veselnitskaya was at both meetings, and both meetings touched on the same subject (Magnitsky Act), does not mean they are related. They were extremely different types of meetings with very different foci.

Only right-wing conspiracy sites have tried to make a connection, but RS don't prove any real connection. It would be a SYNTHESIS violation to keep that material, and we don't promote conspiracy theories as factual. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Well said! The Old Gray Lady is the mother of all right-wing conspiracy sites. Politrukki (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Good one. The New York Times does mention them in the same article, but makes no conspiracy out of it. On the contrary: "Mr. Simpson was in court with Ms. Veselnitskaya hours before the Trump Tower meeting and saw her again shortly after it,... [b]ut these contacts were related to Mr. Simpson’s work on the case for BakerHostetler, Mr. Levy said, and Fusion only learned about the Trump Tower meeting in news reports last year." Therefore there is no relevance to this article. It's off-topic here, but it would be on-topic for the Trump–Russia dossier, Fusion GPS, Glenn R. Simpson, and Natalia Veselnitskaya articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I reverted, but I have no strong feelings whether the information should be included or not. I use the word "information" instead of "material" because there are at least two WP:V issues with this proposal. (1) NYT does not explicitly mention Denis Katsyv. This can easily be fixed by citing this Fox News piece. (2) Neither of these sources seems to say that Veselnitskaya denied meeting with Simpson. Politrukki (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If this material is to be included, Levy's (Simpson's lawyer) statement that Fusion did not know about the Trump Tower meeting should also be included. Politrukki (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to the lead of the article: approximately how many meetings were there? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump Campaign Meeting with Gulf States

I think this fits here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/us/politics/trump-jr-saudi-uae-nader-prince-zamel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Once, it mentions the meeting with Russia, so WP:RS see the connection. Second, it was another meeting where the Trump Campaign (Don Jr.) sought foreign help. That said, sense this is the first meeting outside of Russia, we should change the name of the article.Casprings (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw this earlier, and agree that it fits here. It seems more than one foreign government took an interest in the Trump campaign. We should probably rename the article to something that indicates its broadened scope. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This section needs to be fleshed out some more... here's a recommended source for expanding upon how the UAE meetings (there were more than one) relate to Russia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/blackwater-founder-held-secret-seychelles-meeting-to-establish-trump-putin-back-channel/2017/04/03/95908a08-1648-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.c6b077bae672 "The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi­mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump" "The meeting took place around Jan. 11 — nine days before Trump’s inauguration — in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said. Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions." HonorKnight (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Trump campaign–Russian meetings → Meetings of Trump campaign members with Russian individuals – Current title is unclear and ungrammatical. Suggesting a better descriptive title for accuracy. — JFG ^talk 06:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Move to Meetings between Trump campaign staff and Russians. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Manafort and Trump Jt. were not mere "staff"; "members" is more generic. — JFG ^talk 20:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see how the proposed title is better. Starting with the word Trump make's it possible for someone to locate the article intuitively by searching. Titles don't need to be grammatical, and the current one is non necessarily ungrammatical anyway. The current title is natural and concise.- MrX 🖋 20:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Try Trump campaigners' meetings with Russians This will suit WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. The nom is correct that the current title is a wreck; MrX is correct that leading with "Trump" helps in searching and that the long thing proposed by the nominator is also a wreck.
  Some early drafts of the replacement idea were Trump campaign meetings with Russians (possibly mistakeable for "meetings of Trump himself with Russians about the campaign"); Trump campaign's meetings with Russians (possibly mistakable for "official Trump Campaign meetings with Russians"); and Trump campaigner meetings with Russians (implies one individual campaigner) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC) revised.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  @MrX, BushelCandle, and Rreagan007:.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with this suggestion.- MrX 🖋 23:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I now oppose this since SMcCandish changed it AFTER several editors said they would support Trump campaign meetings with Russians.- MrX 🖋 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

As one might expect from such an ethical and knowledgeable editor, SMcCandlish has scrupulously and punctiliously documented each of his improvements to his original proposal. Consequently I am even happier with his latest proposal and I will certainly object promptly if that ceases to be the case (perhaps because of further polishing). --BushelCandle (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I would also be fine with this. Oppose now per Mr. X.Casprings (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Me too.--BushelCandle (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose requested move per reasons given by SMcCandlish and agree that his alternative title is better than both the proposal and the existing title. --BushelCandle (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP Mr. X. Current title is concise and natural.Casprings (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – SMcCandlish's suggestion is interesting, but reads as if "the Trump campaign" met with Russians, and that is not what happened. We have not seen any allegation that the Trump campaign, as en entity, organized or accepted meetings with Russian individuals, much less government officials. I would strongly object to a title that pushes an unproven, and even unalleged, narrative. For a correct representation of known facts and article contents, the title must include "Trump campaign members" or "members of the Trump campaign".

Additionally, we are not constrained to twist grammar in order to place the "Trump" word first: that is also non-neutral. Search works very well irrespective of word placement. I imagine we could use "Trump campaign members' meetings with Russian individuals", which frankly looks rather convoluted. As a descriptive title, my proposal sounds a lot more natural. Plus we will have a redirect from the current Trump campaign–Russian meetings title, so that MrX's desired search behavior is preserved. — JFG ^talk 05:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's plausible that anyone will think that every single person involved in a campaign all showed up at once and did something when an expression referring to the the Trump campaign is used in this way.
But, fine. Try: Trump campaigner meetings with Russians or Trump campaigners' meetings with Russians.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean "all the campaign", but surely there's a difference between a campaign decision and individual meetings which were apparently opportunistic and not coordinated with each other. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair point, and SMcCandlish's amendment deals with your distinction adequately I believe...--BushelCandle (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked it slightly anyway, to "campaigners'" instead of "campaign's" to account for JFG's point which I grok better now. I often say that "a disambiguation that introduces another ambiguity is a failure", so I'd better live by it!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in lifting any ambiguity, much appreciated. I still support my original proposal, which simply reads better. Think of non-native speakers as well: I'd rather spell out a longer and clearer title than rely on subtleties of the English possessive. Again, search concerns are appropriately handled by redirects. — JFG ^talk 12:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose original suggestion, support SMcCandlish's suggestion.(support original "campaign", not the new "campaigners") Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  Volunteer Marek - SMcCandlish changed it at 11:11, July 14, 2018. - MrX 🖋 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  @BushelCandle, Rreagan007, JFG, and Casprings: Pinging the rest, too, to check out the tweak to: Trump campaigners' meetings with Russians.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: SMcCandlish's latest proposal uses the word "campaigner", which, in my mind at least, triggers a vision of entry-level staff recruited to spread the message. As those meetings involved some of the senior members of the Trump campaign, "campaigners" sounds inappropriate. We should not sacrifice clarity to brevity. — JFG ^talk 12:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  I think it's going to be difficult to encapsulate the whole article in its title. Could you perhaps propose a concrete alternative to SMcCandlish's latest proposal so that we can compare and contrast? --BushelCandle (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  @BushelCandle: My proposal is right up there in the move request: Meetings of Trump campaign members with Russian individuals. I still don't see anything wrong with it. In the realm of descriptive titles, it's not even longer than the well-loved Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. — JFG ^talk 12:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you entertain contracting Meetings of Trump campaign members with Russian individuals to Meetings of Trump campaign members with Russians ? --BushelCandle (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• I give up, myself. I will say that I worked as a professional lobbyist/policy analyst/activist for about a decade, and would not have made "low-level staffer" assumption about "campaigner"; in my line of then-work, it would have meant someone involved in the campaign directly, in this context (not so much on issue-based politics). Random schmoes helping in an election campaign were generally referred to as the grassroots.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Lol to "random schmoes"! To me, "campaigner" sounds like the generic "human rights campaigner" or "anti-GMO campaigner", basically any kind of activist. Besides, I have hardly ever seen any sources about this affair describe Mr. Page, Papadopoulos, Manafort or Trump Jr. as a "campaigner". The usual wordings are "member of the Trump campaign", "senior member of the Trump campaign", "adviser to the Trump campaign" or, in the case of Manafort, "Trump campaign manager". — JFG ^talk 12:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like that to me too but we should go by the RS's not our own views. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 31 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Trump campaign–Russian meetings → Trump Tower meeting – WP:COMMONNAME. That is how this is generally and widely known and the term by which it is described in the sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: What do you propose to do with the other meetings covered by this article? Spin them off? — JFG ^talk 12:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We could spin it off or have it a "other meetings" section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, we already have a redirect at Trump Tower meeting, so that people searching for this well-known name are correctly brought here. I would suggest you update the proposed title to say "meeting" instead of "Meeting", per MOS:CAPS. — JFG ^talk 12:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know but COMMONNAME still applies. And thanks, corrected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with the proposed move. At the time we titled this article there was no common name, so we kind of made something up. But now "Trump Tower meeting" is well enough known and widely enough used that it would be more appropriate. It's true that we also mention a couple of other meetings here, and I think we could continue to do so, as VM suggests. If at some point one of the other meeting turns out to be a big deal as well, we could spin it off then. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. There's no reason the other related meetings can't still be covered in this article.- MrX 🖋 14:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The article is about several meetings. However, I don't like the current title, and propose moving to Trump campaign Russian meetings (without the dash), per WP:TITLEFORMAT as the current title suggests this is a subsidiary article to an article called "Trump campaign"). jamacfarlane (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per Mr. X.Casprings (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support only if other meetings are moved elsewhere or deleted altogether. This material about extra meetings is already widely covered at Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, we can just point there as "See also". — JFG ^talk 14:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not support the removal on content. The other meetings are clearly related and should be handled in an “other meetings” section.Casprings (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

How are the Papadopoulos and Carter Page meetings "clearly related" to the Trump Jr./Manafort/Veselnitskaya meeting at Trump Tower? The only relation I see is that people involved once worked for Trump. There is no indication in sources or in published testimony so far that the Agalarov/Veselnitskaya stint bears any relation with those other "Trump campaign–Russian meetings". — JFG ^talk 16:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Papadopoulos met with Mifsud, who was falsely made to look like a Russian operative when in fact Mifsud has ties to Western intelligence and was interviewed by the FBI, most likely as an agent provocateur against Papadopoulos and as a phony reason for beginning the counter intelligence operation against Trump.Phmoreno (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine, you're proving my point. What is the connection between Mifsud and any of the Trump Tower meeting protagonists: Agalarov, Goldstone or Veselnitskaya? — JFG ^talk 18:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

JFG because multiple RSes connect them to the Trump Tower Meeting. See:

• WP: At least nine people in Trump’s orbit had contact with Russians during campaign and transition
• NYT: Trump Campaign Adviser Met With Russian to Discuss ‘Dirt’ on Clinton
• WP: Russian officials and allies repeatedly signaled support for Trump to his campaign team

And many more.Casprings (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Right. This is Trump, Russia, connect the dots all over again. I mean, RS have compared Trump's sex life to Kennedy's, and that does not mean these people are connected. I believe they never met or even tweeted about each other. — JFG ^talk 05:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there an article on that subject and do you have the cites? We are policy based at Wikipedia. The RSes view it as related and so should we.Casprings (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, let me make my point more obvious. None of the sources connecting various Trump-related people to various Russia-related people make an assertion that Mifsud/Page/Papadopoulos/Flynn have a connection to Veselnitskaya/Agalarov/Goldstone, or any similar plot. That the Trump Tower meeting is mentioned in the same articles as other meetings does not make these meetings or the groups involved in them related to each other. — JFG ^talk 07:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources see it as connected because these are contacts between the Russian government or connected people to the Russian Government and the Trump Campaign. Therefore, if the article is renamed Trump Tower meeting, that is important context for the article as it represents or meetings between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Government. As I said, it is clearly related.Casprings (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Support - There must have been a million meetings in Trump Tower in the last 35 years. But, the proposed title does appear to be the common name and the current name is a tad awkward. Agree that other meetings should remain in this article. Have a feeling there will be yet another future move. O3000 (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't agree with this logic. As I see it, the article isn't about single event with a WP:COMMONNAME, but the fact that Trump and his campaign staff had several meetings with Russian connections, and the reactions to the existence of those meetings. This proposal would be like moving Watergate scandal to "Wiretapping of the Democratic Party's headquarters". jamacfarlane (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

CNN's report on Cohen alleging Trump had prior knowledge

Is this topic worth including here?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-june-2016-meeting-knowledge/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/lanny-davis-trump-tower-michael-cohen/index.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lanny-davis-says-he-was-only-asking-cnn-to-investigate-whether-trump-had-advance-knowledge-of-the-trump-tower-meeting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/27/michael-cohens-lawyer-has-done-real-damage-case-against-trump/?utm_term=.15ae535adaad

It's important to note that one of CNN's anonymous sources - Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis - outed himself as a source and walked back his assertions, saying "I should have done a much better job of speaking with more suspicion than certainty, and I regret my mistake" and now indicated that he simply sought to have journalists investigate the matter. However, it seems like CNN did exactly that, investigated the matter and found a second "primary source" to confirm the story before publishing.

To be clear, the second "primary source" did not confirm Trump's foreknowledge of the meeting, they only confirmed Cohen's willingness to testify about such foreknowledge (which was all the article alleged). Any number of reliable sources could back that up and it still be of questionable encyclopedic merit given that Cohen may not be a particularly reliable source himself. This all happened when Cohen was seeking a plea deal, so Cohen had an obvious incentive to have something to offer the FBI to try to secure a better deal. It sounds like Cohen was "leaking" his willingness to testify about this, presumably hoping for a plea deal that would include immunity for perjury due to his contradictory statements to congress. Then, as the Washington Post article notes, Davis had multiple weeks to backpedal after the article was published, but only did so after Cohen had pleaded guilty without any immunity, and the prospect of a better deal was therefore no longer on the table. At that point it stands to reason Cohen would have his lawyer backpedal to avoid adding lying to congress to his list of offenses. This all seems murky enough that I'm not entirely comfortable adding anything about it to the article. Thoughts?

HonorKnight (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the question and the sources. Good analysis. I agree it is too vague and too murky to say anything right now. What we have is that 1) an anonymous source claims that Cohen offered to say this, and 2) Cohen's attorney initially said this was something Cohen was willing to say (presumably as part of a proffer), but then backed down. Vague sourcing that Cohen has suggested he could say this. All too flimsy for an encyclopedia. When we reach the point that Cohen actually does say it, then we will have something worth reporting. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we kept it out of the CNN controversies article as I don’t think the claim that CNN didn’t perform due diligence has been shown. OTOH, I also don’t think it belongs here as so many folks in this soap opera keep shifting stories. O3000 (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

About the "timeline" section

I really don't think a format with "on July 10," "on July 11", one-sentence paragraphs is the easiest to follow or to understand. I see how that happened, with people adding each day's tidbit of news, but I think the time has come when we can write a decent prose paragraph. In fact I think we need two, a paragraph about the meeting and a separate paragraph about the initial explanation; in both cases the information came out bit by bit, and in our current format they are completely interwined. Very hard to follow. Does anyone think this approach has promise? If so I will draft up some language, and submit it here before inserting it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yuck. Took a stab at a temp fix until a better method is suggested. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this section definitely needs to be converted to prose, and considerably shortened. Will be happy to help after you build a first draft. — JFG ^talk 07:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, OK. I've been working on this most of the day. Instead of chronological, it is now organized by subject matter. (It's way more than the two paragraphs I naively envisioned.) I didn't remove any information or any references, just rearranged things. So it's possible that some of the information, or some of the references, could be condensed or eliminated. Rather than trying to do that here, maybe it would be better if I put it in the article now, in place of the "Disclosure timeline" material and retitled "Disclosure" - and then we could tweak the wording in the article. See what you think. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The meeting, which took place on June 9, 2016, first came to the attention of authorities in April 2017, when Kushner reported on a revised security clearance form that he had met with Veselnitskaya.

The meeting was first publicly reported on July 8, 2017, when The New York Times reported that there had been a June 2016 meeting with "a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin", arranged by Trump Jr. and including Kushner and Manafort. The information was attributed to "people familiar with the documents" and confirmed by representatives of Trump Jr. and Kushner. Later that day, Trump Jr. released a statement saying the meeting had been a "short introductory meeting" about American adoption of Russian children and "not a campaign issue". However, the next day it was reported that emails setting up the meeting did not mention Russian adoptions; instead, Goldstone had told Trump Jr. the meeting would provide the Trump campaign with negative information about Clinton, and that this offer was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin". Trump Jr. then issued another statement in which he acknowledged that he had gone to the meeting expecting information about Clinton. Over the next few days the identity of the attendees was established.

On July 11 Trump Jr. posted entire the email chain leading up to the meeting on Twitter; a few minutes later The New York Times also published it. In a statement accompanying the posted email, Trump Jr. asserted that he had wanted to just have a phone call but that didn't work out. In an interview later in the day, Sean Hannity asked whether he had been given further details of the meeting in any phone calls, and Trump Jr. said no such phone calls had taken place and it had all been email coordination. But later, in a September 7 closed-door interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee, he contradicted his prior statement, acknowledging that phone records showed three short phone calls with Agalarov prior to the meeting.

On July 10, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sanders said the president had learned of the meeting only "in the last couple of days". On July 12 President Trump gave an interview with Reuters, in which he reiterated that he had only known about the meeting for "a couple of days" and that "many people would have held that meeting". Trump praised his son Donald Jr. for his transparency in releasing the emails, and claimed that they were victims of a "political witch hunt". The same day Trump Jr. gave an interview to Hannity, in which he denied having told his father about the meeting. The next day, July 13, Corey Lewandowski was interviewed on NBC's Meet the Press. When asked why he was not invited to the meeting, he claimed that he and Trump had been at a rally in Florida on the date of the June 9, 2016 meeting. In fact, there was no rally in Florida that day. Instead, Trump was at a Trump Victory fundraising lunch at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York, two blocks from Trump Tower. At 1:02 PM, Trump left the lunch and returned to Trump Tower, "where he remained for the rest of the afternoon". According to emails, the meeting was scheduled for 4:00 PM.

The original statement issued by Trump Jr. on July 8 became controversial in its own right because of conflicting stories about who had written it. On July 11 it was reported that the original statement released by Trump Jr. had been drafted by presidential advisers aboard Air Force One on the way home from the G20 summit in Germany, and that it had been approved by President Trump — an account confirmed in a July 31 report by The Washington Post. On July 12 Donald Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow insisted that the initial misleading statement on the Trump Tower meeting had been written by Donald Trump Jr. in consultation with his lawyer, and that it wasn't written by Donald Trump. In a later interview the same day, on ABC, Sekulow said that Donald Trump didn't sign off on the statement and that the president "wasn't involved in that". On July 16 Sekulow again said that Donald Trump did not draft the response and was not involved in the drafting of the statement. On July 31 The Washington Post reported that the version released by Trump Jr. on July 8 was actually produced by his father on Air Force One, on the way back from the Group of 20 summit. The report said that Trump had "overruled the consensus" of Trump Jr., Kushner, aides, and lawyers, who favored issuing a transparent report "because they believed the complete story would eventually emerge." The Post reported that Trump personally dictated, worked on, and released a version in Trump Jr's name, with claims which "were later shown to be misleading". Some advisors reportedly feared "that the president’s direct involvement leaves him needlessly vulnerable to allegations of a coverup." At the next day's White House press briefing, Sanders stated that Trump "certainly didn't dictate, but ... he weighed in, offered suggestion, like any father would do". In January 2018, in a confidential letter from President Trump's legal team to special counsel Robert Mueller, Trump's lawyers acknowledged for the first time that Trump had in fact dictated the first misleading statement put out about the meeting in Trump Jr.'s name; this contradicted several prior statements by the lawyers and others.

Although the email chain described Natalia Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government attorney", Scott Balber, formerly a lawyer for Donald Trump and now Agalarov's lawyer, said in a July 14, 2017 interview that Veselnitskaya has no association with the Russian government. For his part, Akhmetshin denied having ties to Russian intelligence, and said that the efforts by Veselnitskaya and himself "were not coordinated with the Russian government." Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian government didn't know Akhmetshin or Veselnitskaya, or anything about the meeting. In a November 2017 statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Veselnitskaya said “I have no relationship with Mr. Chaika, his representatives and his institutions other than those related to my professional functions as a lawyer.” But on April 27, 2018, in an NBC News interview, Veselnitskaya stated, “I am a lawyer, and I am an informant,” adding that “since 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor general,” Yury Chaika.

CNN reported on October 9 that Balber, the Aglarovs' lawyer, had obtained the memo which Veselnitskaya took to the meeting. Subsequently, Foreign Policy published the full memo. It claimed that an American firm, Ziff Brothers Investments, illegally evaded tens of millions of dollars of Russian taxes and contributed to Clinton's election campaign. This accusation was said to have been coordinated by Veselnitskaya in advance with Chaika, and was repeated later by Putin.

On December 7, CNN reported on two previously undisclosed follow-up emails from Rob Goldstone discovered by congressional investigators. Among the recipients of the email were Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort. In one of the emails, dated June 14, 2016, five days after the meeting, Goldstone forwarded a news story about Russian hacking of Democrats' emails, describing the news as "eerily weird" in light of what they had discussed in the Trump Tower meeting. This contradicted the original public statement by Trump Jr. that "there was no follow up" after the meeting, as well as his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2017 that "Rob, Emin and I never discussed the meeting again".

On May 16, 2018, The Senate Judiciary Committee released emails and text messages between Goldstone, Agalarov, Kaveladze, and Trump attorney Alan S. Futerfas, in which Futerfas provided a prepared statement for them to make, and said it "would be our preference" if they did not say anything else in response to inquiries about the meeting.

Sources

Whoa that's long! Thanks for your efforts. Rather hold off before placing that in the article. I'll suggest a trimmed version a bit later. — JFG ^talk 11:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, since I didn't remove anything, it is very long and kind of repetitive. (We don't need Jay Sekulow saying the same thing three times.) The important thing to keep the focus on is the process and timing of disclosure, which is what this section is about. Sometimes that takes a fair amount of verbiage, just because we got so many different versions before finally settling on one that appears to be correct. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I will say that as a contributor to this section, this format did make it easy to pitch in with minimal effort, making it possible to jot down that latest news without having to integrate it into a larger block of prose. I'd recommend waiting until this section is "finalized" (i.e. after the Special Council investigation ends) before rewriting it into a format like this that is, IMHO, a bit harder to contribute to but better for long-term consumption by readers. HonorKnight (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Shorter take

Here's my proposed shorter version, based on Melanie's prose.

The meeting, which took place on June 9, 2016, first came to the attention of authorities in April 2017, when Kushner reported on a revised security clearance form that he had met with Veselnitskaya.[1][2][3] On July 8, 2017, The New York Times first mentioned a June 2016 meeting with "a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin", arranged by Trump Jr. and including Kushner and Manafort.[3][4] Later that day, Trump Jr. released a statement calling it a "short introductory meeting" about American adoption of Russian children and "not a campaign issue".[3] The next day it emerged that Goldstone had told Trump Jr. that the meeting would provide the Trump campaign with negative information about Clinton, and that this offer was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump", with no mention of the adoption issue.[5][6][4] Trump Jr. reacted by acknowledging that he had been expecting information about Clinton.[7] Over the next few days the identity of the attendees was established.[8]

On July 11 Trump Jr. tweeted the entire email chain leading up to the meeting, a few minutes before The New York Times published it as well.[9] Trump Jr. stated that he would have preferred to just have a phone call but that didn't work out.[10] Later that day, Trump Jr. told Sean Hannity that the meeting had been fully arranged by email, and that he had received no further details by phone.[11] He would later contradict this statement during a closed-door interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 7, acknowledging three short phone calls with Agalarov prior to the meeting.[12]

On July 12, 2017, President Trump stated in a Reuters interview that he had only known about the meeting for a couple of days, and that "many people would have held that meeting".[14] Trump praised his son Don Jr. for his transparency in releasing the emails, and claimed that they were victims of a "political witch hunt".[15][16] The same day Trump Jr. denied having told his father about the meeting.[17] On July 13, Corey Lewandowski was asked on NBC's Meet the Press why he had not been invited to the meeting. He replied that he was at a Trump rally in Florida on the meeting date, but there was in fact no rally in Florida that day.[18] Instead, Trump attended a Trump Victory fundraising lunch at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York, and returned to Trump Tower at 1:02 PM, where he "remained for the rest of the afternoon". According to emails, the Veselnitskaya meeting was scheduled for 4:00 PM.[19]

The July 8 statement by Trump Jr. became controversial in its own right because of conflicting stories about who had written it. On July 11 it was reported that the statement had been drafted by presidential advisers aboard Air Force One on the way home from the G20 summit in Germany, and that it had been approved by President Trump.[20][21] On July 12 Donald Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow insisted that it had been written by Trump Jr. in consultation with his lawyer.[22] Sekulow stated In an ABC interview that Donald Trump didn't sign off on the statement and "wasn't involved in that".[23] He repeated these statements on July 16.[24] On July 31 The Washington Post reported that the Trump Jr. version of July 8 had actually been drafted by his father on Air Force One. The report said that Trump had "overruled the consensus" of Trump Jr., Kushner, aides, and lawyers, who favored issuing a transparent account "because they believed the complete story would eventually emerge." According to The Post, Trump personally dictated, worked on, and released a version in Trump Jr's name, with claims that "were later shown to be misleading". Some advisors reportedly feared "that the president’s direct involvement leaves him needlessly vulnerable to allegations of a coverup."[21][25][26] The next day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated that Trump "certainly didn't dictate, but ... he weighed in, offered suggestion, like any father would do".[27] In January 2018, in a confidential letter from Trump's legal team to special counsel Robert Mueller, Trump's lawyers acknowledged for the first time that Trump had in fact dictated the first statement put out about the meeting in Trump Jr.'s name, thus contradicting prior representations.[28]

Although the email chain described Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government attorney", Scott Balber, formerly a lawyer for Trump and now for Agalarov, said in a July 14, 2017 interview that she had no association with the Russian government.[5][29] For his part, Akhmetshin denied having ties to Russian intelligence, and said that the efforts by Veselnitskaya and himself "were not coordinated with the Russian government."[30] Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian government didn't know Akhmetshin or Veselnitskaya, or anything about the meeting.[31][32] In a November 2017 statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Veselnitskaya said “I have no relationship with Mr. Chaika, his representatives and his institutions other than those related to my professional functions as a lawyer.”[33] However she also stated in April 2018: “I am a lawyer, and I am an informant,” adding that “since 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor general,” Yury Chaika.[33]

CNN reported on October 9 that Balber had obtained the memo which Veselnitskaya took to the meeting,[34] and it was released by Foreign Policy.[35] The memo claimed that an American firm, Ziff Brothers Investments, illegally evaded tens of millions of dollars of Russian taxes, and contributed to Clinton's election campaign. Veselnitskaya reportedly coordinated this accusation in advance with Chaika, and Putin later repeated the charge.[36]

Two previously undisclosed emails from Rob Goldstone emerged on December 7, as discovered by congressional investigators. The recipients included Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort. In a June 14, 2016 email, five days after the meeting, Goldstone forwarded a news story about Russian hacking of Democrats' emails, describing the news as "eerily weird" in light of what had been discussed at Trump Tower.[37] This discovery contradicted the initial statement by Trump Jr. that "there was no follow up" after the meeting,[3] as well as his September 2017 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he stated: "Rob, Emin and I never discussed the meeting again".[37]

On May 16, 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee released emails and text messages in which Trump attorney Alan S. Futerfas provided a prepared statement for Goldstone, Agalarov and Kaveladze, further asserting that it "would be our preference" if they did not say anything else in response to inquiries about the meeting.[38][39]

Citations to be added unchanged (I edited this outside wiki to be able to read the text without being distracted by the citation markup. @MelanieN, Objective3000, and HonorKnight: What do you think? — JFG ^talk 13:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. And I think it should be added now. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. O3000 (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done, with some further tidying. — JFG ^talk 08:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Eric Swalwell article

"To arrange the infamous June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, Donald Trump Jr. called his Russian contact, then called a blocked number, and then called his Russian contact back. We had evidence from other witnesses that Donald Trump used a blocked number. Republicans refused to pursue whether it was the same number." Representative Eric Swalwell

There may be more that can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Veselnitskaya indictment on separate investigation

Veselnitskaya was recently indicted for obstruction of justice in an unrelated money-laundering investigation.

"According to the indictment, Veselnitskaya’s 2015 filing to the court in the Prevezon case amounted to obstruction of justice because she 'made to the court a false and misleading declaration implying that she had not participated in the drafting' of the Russian government’s response to the U.S. request for records. The indictment charges that, contrary to those claims, U.S. investigators obtained emails between Veselnitskaya and a Russian prosecutor in which, together, they worked on the language of the Russian government’s response." [11]

This isn't directly related to the Trump Tower meeting, but might be relevant when considering Veselnitskaya's character for the purpose of weighing information originating from her against information from other sources. For starters, her trustworthiness would seem relevant given the various places in this article that cite statements by Veselnitskaya. There's also a document at the heart of the trump tower meeting (the one she brought to the meeting), and we have only Veselnitskaya's word that the version of the document she released was really the same document that she brought to the meeting; the fact that her indictment included allegations of falsifying the origin of a document in an investigation puts grave doubt in the veracity of that trump tower meeting document and her statements about it.

I'm not clear on the best practices and policies of Wikipedia, so I'd appreciate some feedback on this. Is referencing this just character assassination instead of being encyclopedic information? Is an indictment a bad source without a conviction, "innocent until proven guilty" and all that? Or is this worth including here?

HonorKnight (talk) 18:38, 22 January 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) 03:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)