Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Opening sentence

Sorry, but this six month old discussion has deteriorated into opinions, OR, repetition, and keeps goes off-track to side issues. Not going anywhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've been reverted. Geogene (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1264022576 by Sarah777 (talk). Without credible opposition in reliable sources, this is a statement of fact, not a POV It would appear that anything the US "intelligence community" claims is now, per Goegene, a fact - unless you can prove it isn't. This is so bizzare that it appears to prove the online conspiracy theories that the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki. Seriously? And is the American Intelligence Community the only one on Earth whose utterances are taken as FACT - or are there others? Sarah777 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) It was just US intelegence that said it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) Is this fact being disputed in reliable sources? WP:YESPOV says, Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.. So, I will ask you again, Sarah777, is there credible opposition in reliable sources? If there is not, then this is a fact. Geogene (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC) You are assuming there are reliable sources to support the original claim. What are they? Sarah777 (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry, are you asking whether or not sources exist for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? Geogene (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) Reliable ones - you know, other than the "US intelligence community" or sources merely citing them. Yes, I'm asking for that. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC) There are 605 sources cited in the article. You must not be serious. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC) I'm very serious. Can you point out a few of those 605 sources which are not citing the "US intelligence community" or sources merely repeating those claims? Sarah777 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Can you point out a reliable source, but not one of those 605 reliable sources?" The RS are RS, even if you want to discount them all. What would you accept as a valid source on this topic? A MAGA Republican's twitter feed? You're not going to be satisfied with the result of this conversation so it's best to accept it and move on. the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki is pretty WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) So, out of 605 "reliable sources" you can't even supply one?! And I'm not American and have zero interest in the Maga folk. To me the DNC and Maga are two sides of the same coin. Sarah777 (talk) Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Btw..."but not one of those 605 reliable sources" - I'm stating that I don't beleive any of them are reliable sources. Seemingly you can't supply any source that hasn't originated with the US "intelligence community". Why am I not surprised? Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) No, not "can't", "won't". I'm not playing your game. It's not on me to satisfy you personally after all of the years of editing and consensus-building that has taken place on this article, especially when you've already moved the goal posts to such a ridiculous place beyond the pitch. I don't care where you're from (other than it influencing my choice of the word "pitch" over "field") and what you personally believe is irrelevant here. I care that we have RS in the article, 605 of them in fact, and they are reliable whether you like that or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Nonsense. And you probably know it. Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) You’re right, complete nonsense NW Cracker (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC) Muboshgu is right - there are many sources that confirm what happened, not just from American intelligence but from other countries as well, such as the Dutch intelligence agents who originally tipped off the NSA.[1] And anyway, intelligence reports and stuff are WP:PRIMARY, but we have reliable academics and outlets reporting stuff that is reliable. The Dutch intelligence had access to Cozy Bear for well over a year and also tipped off the CIA about Fancy Bear on more than one occasion. Andre🚐 06:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC) Indeed, Muboshgu and Andre are right. We have plenty of RS backing for our content. This piece of key information is outstanding evidence of Russian hacking. The Dutch were eyewitnesses to what happened. They practically "stood behind" the hackers and watched over their shoulders, so to speak, in real time as they did the hacking, and they recorded it all, with the identities of each hacker. They also saw that Russian intelligence possessed stolen DNC emails. They then reported all that to the CIA and FBI. You can't get much better evidence of Russian hacking and election interference than that. Just read what we have in the article: de Volkskrant later reported that Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the Russian hacking group Cozy Bear in 2014, and observed them in 2015 hack the State Department in real time, while capturing pictures of the hackers via a security camera in their workspace. American, British, and Dutch intelligence services had also observed stolen DNC emails on Russian military intelligence networks. It's really frustrating that people come here and dare to criticize the article and the narrative provided by RS when they haven't even read the article first! Perform your due diligence before making such serious allegations and assertions. If we are misinterpreting a source or using it improperly....well, that's a different animal entirely, and that should of course be fixed. Shit happens and should be dealt with, but trying to sanewash Trump's shit is a different matter. We don't allow historical revisionism here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC) Imagine anyone who'd "dare to criticize" your blind acceptance of Western spooks. Golly gosh, shocking. (Or maybe you're just being sarcastic?) Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC) Mocking is cheap and easy, while understanding the issues is more difficult. I'm well aware of the dangers of blindly believing everything that comes from the world of spies, and context means everything, but here we are dealing with someone whom intelligence agencies and politicans originally had no reason to oppose. Yet, his actions proved otherwise, and, as they were exposed, what followed was his own fault, not a witch hunt. We are dealing with a situation where the American intelligence agencies and their allies were finding the same suspicious actions, all streamlined to help Trump, and coming from America's arch enemy. Any form of help from them must be rejected, but Trump welcomed it. That makes sense, as Trump has long held very public and strongly anti-American views and clearly favored Russia and its mafia as it is the source of most of his financing and was a place he hoped he could build more projects. Those projects were dangled before his nose like a carrot by Putin, who wisely didn't allow him to succeed, yet Trump kept hoping for success in Russia. The East Bloc was even a source of his wives, as American women spurned him, just like American banks that refused to loan to him because he was such a bad investiment and poor businessman. (But he's a good self-promoter.) It takes some gall for an editor to ignore what RS and actual witnesses say. Dutch intelligence watched as it happened and warned their American counterparts. Eight different intelligence agencies (seven European and Australia), who had nothing against Trump, discovered suspicious secretive contacts all over Europe between Trump's people and actual Russian intelligence agents. Why on earth was this happening? They had NEVER seen such a thing, and they recognized that democracy itself was in danger. Even worse, Trump's campaign CHAIRMAN Manafort shared sensitive polling data with Russian intelligence, and Roger Stone tried to coordinate with WikiLeaks, which was working with Russian intelligence. Court documents show that Trump even tried to make a quid pro quo deal with Assange to pardon him in exchange for Assange and Wikileaks blaming Ukraine, rather than Russia, the real culprit, for the hack and leak operation, all designed to damage Clinton and help Trump. Trump lied about everything and tried to keep it secret. That's what RS tell us, and that information is found in our articles here. We document this shit. The opposing views of the guilty parties are found in unreliable sources. They obviously have a huge COI, which explains their attempts to rewrite history to protect themselves and deny their involvement in the travesty and treasonous behavior we witnessed and that was documented in spades by several bypartisan investigations. That's what RS tell us, and that information is found in our articles here. And yet again, we document this shit! So it comes down to whether editors will accept what RS say, or stay in their fringe (unreliable sources) partisan bubble and try to undermine RS, which is an unwikipedian attitude that is destructive and violates our RS policy. If they wish to change the content here, let them produce RS that successfully prove that what witnesses saw and investigations found are wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC) So now it is "Western" intelligence we do not think is reliable? I suppose KGB intel or maybe intel from Iran or China would be more suitable? Or is there another source of "Eastern" information we should be considering, here? Maybe just whatever Sergey Lavrov told us is going on? Andre🚐 03:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC) Do we cite Western intelligence? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC) "Trump has long held very public and strongly anti-American views " The guy is a bit weird - but seriously! What "anti-American" views does the guy who wants to make America "Great Again" hold? Surreal! |||| Sarah777 (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC) Sarah, are you really not aware of his history of serving Russian interests? As this gets away from the purpose of this talk page, I'll share it with you on your talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC) Serving Russiah interests by driving down enerrgy prices, the backbone of the RussiAn economy. repeated declassified memos have now been made publicly available refuting this and the other at least 123 separate articles derived fr WP RS which were mouthpieces for the corrupted US government dealing with Russian interference in the 2016 election. But hey even the US Coast Guard investigated and found credence. WP serves as a chronicle and not an encyclopedia.2601:46:C47F:5A0:A4C2:EDAB:B283:C943 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC) It is up for debate whether Trump serves Russian interests. See for example the Deyermond paper below. Trump's actions as pertaining to Ukraine are inscrutable and difficult to explain. That is according to an expert. One way to try to explain it is about kompromat. However, regardless, this article is not about declassified memos or general relations btwn Trump campaign and Russia, but specifically about the 2016 interference campaign. See below for more sources (the 2-below section "Partisan slant"). The Trump campaign welcomed the Russian interference and cooperated with it. Whether it was effective may be debated but it is not up for debate whether it took place. Andre🚐 21:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC) It's up for debate! "John Brennan ignored ‘veteran’ CIA officers to push claim Putin wanted Trump to win in 2016: bombshell House intel report". However, regardless this page is Russian Interference in the 2016 Election. This site has 124 separate pages built around completely false premises with the underlying intent of denying the Amer4ican people their right to self governance.2601:46:C47F:5A0:B8A9:4727:8F0A:74EA (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC) Ok, it is NOT up for debate that the Russians helped Trump win. Andre🚐 16:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC) It most certainly IS up for debate! Even the Dems have said the (alleged) Russian hacking of the DNC exposing their plans to ensure Bernie didn't beat Clinton didn't affect the election result. Sarah777 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Whether it affected the election result is impossible to know, but whether it happened is not an allegation, it is fact per RS. The Russians helped Trump and they welcomed the help. Whether it WORKED is a counterfactual because we cannot live in a world where it didn't happen. But the events happened, so denying them is a conspiracy theory. Andre🚐 15:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC) That is *also* not remotely true, in at least three ways. More importantly, it is not discussing the article. If you want to help distract from the Epstein scandal by editing this article, you're going to need to suggest what changes you'd like to see, with reliable sources. No, not Twitter or Truth Social posts. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Are you addressing me? Distract from Trump's entanglement in the Epstein matter is the very last thing I'd do! I detest the guy. I must humbly point out that such an allegation isn't related to improving this dire article either. Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Neither is lying about what 'even the Dems' said. Please stop. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC) This is not a wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC) References

Vandalized footnotes?

I thin the first footnote of the whole page is vandalized. There's a citation that says "Hoax" and mentions several nods to press citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.97.149.66 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it's fine and used twice. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks to prevent any misunderstandings. Those sources debunk Trump's false claims that the Russian interference and the investigations are a "hoax". That is his false conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for "policing" the article to keep it tidy. While doing that, spare us your partisan rants. You're supposed to be editing an encyclopedia, not crusading for truth, justice and your way of thinking. If something is out of place, fix it, but don't use that as an excuse to add to your already voluminous partisan pov commentary on these pages, as if that were the only way to improve an article. DonFB (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

"Partisan slant"? We do not push fringe views here.

@DonFB: maybe I should have replied to your previous personal attack above calling my comment a "partisan rant" when it was a necessary explanation of the situation. The section dealing with the false "Russiagate hoax" idea documents a mainstream and factual matter, so your objections to it border on fringe support of a falsehood and hoax. Explaining this article and the section to you is not a "partisan rant", it is precisely on-topic and what the talk page is for. (If I were pushing a fringe view, it would be forbidden advocacy.) So let's bring you up-to-date and discuss how we are supposed to deal with partisan and fringe ideas.

Now, your deletion needs to be examined. While I understand an objection to the amount of what I added (I was expecting someone to shorten it a bit), your edit summary is worrying from a fringe and NPOV standpoint: "UNDUE; excessive primary source quotation creating partisan slant." NPOV content that is factual and based on mainstream RS, regardless of how "biased", is not a "slant", but the exact POV that has the most due weight, and all else that deviates from it is the wrong bias and slant.

Corn's article in Mother Jones is a secondary, not primary source, but that's really an irrelevant red herring in this case. (If it had been on his own personal blog, that would be a primary source.) The source is perfectly good for this purpose. We quote articles in magazines and newspapers all the time. (Editorials are considered primary sources, but we still use them.) Since when do we object to magazines and newspapers and call them "primary sources"? Primary sources are allowed content. Whatever the case, it's a red herring here, so let's move on....

The idea that my addition of exact quotes from Corn creates a "partisan slant" is really a head scratcher. Does adding what fact-checkers say create a "partisan slant", or are the lies they expose the "partisan slant"?

NPOV requires we document, without editorial bias, what RS say, and when RS expose falsehoods, we are allowed (supposed) to call them "lies" if the source says "lies", and we side with the RS and expose those falsehoods. Research about Wikipedia shows this attitude toward editing and NPOV is what increases Wikipedia's credibility. (Read: How to increase Wikipedia's credibility)

The phrase "Russiagate hoax" is itself a Trumpian falsehood and hoax we are documenting, so documenting the lies of one of the main pushers of that falsehood, Kash Patel, is a good thing. We are doing our job.

FACTS:

1. Russia did interfere in the elections to put Trump in power. Period. End of story.
2. Trump and his campaign cooperated with those efforts and lied about it. Period. End of story.
   

Calling those factual statements a "Russiagate hoax" is just more of those Trumpian lies and a foundational pillar of the current administration, along with Trump's "big lie" about a stolen election.

Now let's discuss a better way to use that material, because I certainly don't claim my addition was perfect. I am always open to improving content, but I object to anything that remotely comes close to censorship or furthering partisan and fringe views by deleting mainstream factual information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The Corn article is his first-person criticism of Patel and challenge to Rogan. He is not "reporting" on the underlying controversy or adducing new facts. He merely repeats information already covered exhaustively by this already bloated article. Your addition of the oversize quotation serves only, again, to put your thumb on the scale in this section of the article, which you previously improperly attempted to overload with a bloc of paragraphs of quotations by Democratic committee members while compressing Republican quotations to less than one sentence. You justify such extreme unbalanced treatment by invoking "fringe" policy, as if the subject matter were a scientific or mathematical theorem proven in scholarly journals. Neither the policy nor wp:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases addresses itself to subject matter that is so heavily laden with overt political partisanship, as this controversy is.

Do you claim that political partisanship has played no role in this controversy? Do you deny having made numerous partisan-tinged Talk statements telling editors which side is right and which is wrong in a variety of Trump or adjacent topics? Is that the role of a dispassionate encyclopedia editor? DonFB (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

We might reconsider how this article is written, because since 2022, the academic consensus seems to be that Russiagate was a hoax. See for example, [Russiagate Revisited: The Aftermath of a Hoax (Springer 2023). Experts were invited to contribute articles to the book and came to the same conclusion. There have been several books published by academic publishers that support this conclusion.

What was mainstream opinion at the time is now considered fringe. But that happens often in politically charged issues such as WMDs in Iraq. TFD (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

That's an interesting book. Looking through the table of contents, I see a paper titled The 2014 Ukraine Coup and the Demonization of Russia. The abstract begins with, As is evident from statistical data, a worldwide collapse of positive attitudes toward Russia occurred in 2014—the year Russia annexed Crimea and supported rebels in eastern Ukraine who allegedly shot down the passenger plane MH17 using the Russian Buk missile system. As this chapter argues, an understanding of what happened in Ukraine in 2013–14 and how the complexity of the Ukrainian crisis of that time has been simplified and distorted in political and media representations is crucial for understanding not only the change in global public opinion after 2014 but also the Russia-Ukraine war of 2022. I'm keen to learn more from this book about how Russia's 2022 special military operation is really Ukraine's fault, but it isn't available from the WP:LIBRARY. Does the fact that Springer published it make it unconditionally reliable? Has Springer never published fringe material before?

Looking further into the source, I found a related paper by its co-editor Stephen M. E. Marmura here [2]. It makes a number of claims that various official inquiries into the hacking are wrong, unfounded, or lacking in evidence, such as Significantly as well, mainstream news outlets have largely ignored a credible—though not definitive—study suggesting that the DNC e-mails were not hacked at all but rather passed to WikiLeaks by a DNC insider (Herman, 2017; Lawrence, 2017). Herman 2017 is this commentary [3] by Edward S. Herman. I haven't found Lawrence 2017, but I suspect it might be a discredited metadata study that bolstered Seth Rich conspiracy theories. (Marmura unequivocably distances himself from Seth Rich conspiracy theories, which he identifies as such, elsewhere in the paper.) But if there were really a scholarly consensus that Russiagate were a hoax, I think he'd have more than these two citations for it. Geogene (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Academic writers will obviously have a range of opinions. However, as reported in Project Censored's State of the Free Press 2024 ("The "Russiagate Fake News Story"), "However, by 2022, academic researchers, independent journalists, and analysts confirmed the falsity of Russiagate."[4]

You wrote, "I haven't found Lawrence 2017, but I suspect it might be a discredited metadata study that bolstered Seth Rich conspiracy theories." Patrick Lawrence, who is a columnist with The Nation, does not mention Seth Rich and no rational observers connect Rich to the leak. You need better evidence to discredit a source than "I suspect."

While it is possible that Spinger and other academic publishers are part of a conspiracy, weight requires us to present their views. While editors may have good reasons to believe the moon landing was faked, articles should reflect the consensus in reliable sources. You need to show that reliable sources still report your viewpoint. TFD (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Until now, I'd never heard of Project Censored or the indy press that publishes it. Regarding your statement, "Patrick Lawrence, who is a columnist with The Nation, does not mention Seth Rich and no rational observers connect Rich to the leak," according to The Nation: The Nation’s own Patrick Lawrence even tweeted on August 9 in support of the ongoing Seth Rich conspiracy talk. [5] I guess you don't consider Lawrence reliable then. You will find more about this Lawrence/Seth Rich episode in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity#The_DNC_hack, such as the quote from one commentator who found it too incoherent to even debunk and how The Nation's editor was reportedly appalled by it. Just because Springer published a book with fringe political views some here might like, that doesn't mean those views are mainstream or represent anything remotely like a scholarly consensus. In academia, it's traditionally thought best to allow divergent thinking representation in the marketplace of ideas, it doesn't mean those ideas are always fit for inclusion in a mainstream encyclopedia. Geogene (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

So does this book say there was no Russian interference? Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Good question. If that is its narrative, then it is not a RS. Any sources that deny that Russia interfered in the elections with the aim of putting Trump in power, and that Trump and his campaign cooperated with those efforts and lied about it are unreliable sources that are contrary to what RS say, and what our articles are based on. They are trying to rewrite history.

It would be a violation of RS policy to use such sources and a violation of WP:Advocacy to lend support to such "Russiagate hoax" views anywhere at Wikipedia, especially on article talk pages. Our job includes supporting our RS policy and thus favoring the use of RS. Undermining such sources to push contrary narratives is not allowed here as they are contrary to what RS say.

These are not mere differences of opinion, where we must document both sides of the issue and give them equal weight, but facts vs fictional conspiracy theories like Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory. We do document falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and we give them the due weight they deserve, which is about zero. We use RS to frame our descriptions of them as the falsehoods they are, and that's about it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant, it has to contradict what WE say in this article, does it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

LOL! Well, if "we" have misinterpreted RS, then of course that should be fixed, so go for it if you find anything like that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

What source do we misrepresent, and how? Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were mockingly criticizing me. I do not think we misrepresent the sources we use. That is what the other editors are asserting, and they would rather use unreliable sources that push views contrary to what the RS we use in this article say.

When looking at the original assertion that there was a "conspiracy of cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russians, they seem to think that because "conspiracy" was not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no cooperation/collusion. That's BS. Mueller's very limited and circumscribed (he was not allowed to find anything indictable against a sitting president) "criminal" investigation did find two instances of possible conspiracy (Manafort and Stone, and Trump knew about it), as well as lots of devious cooperation with the Russians. Eight foreign intelligence agencies also found secretive contacts all over Europe between Trump's people and literal Russian intelligence agents (spies), and they warned the CIA and FBI long before the election that the Russians and Trump's people were up to something very suspicious. The assertion that the Russians interfered in the elections is not solely from American intelligence. Our allies are also concerned about the dangers posed by Trump to our voting republican democracy and free society.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election was a "counterintelligence" report (a very different animal than Mueller's toothless and crippled investigation), and it went much further and deeper than the Mueller Report. It found a whole lot of non-criminal (but bordering on treasonous) cooperative and devious behavior by Trump and his campaign. They did a whole lot to aid the Russian interference. They also tried to keep it secret and lied about it. Many were convicted, but Trump pardoned them. Sources that disagree with those facts are not RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Today, the weight for a Russian conspiracy has dissolved, like the weight for Saddam Hussein's WMDs. I presented a book from Springer which published articles by experts, all of whom rebutted the DNC narrative that dominated the news in 2016 until 2022 at the latest. Now perhaps something went wrong when the book was published, but I cannot find any reliable sources backing up the Russiagate narrative since then.

That does not mean btw that Fox News et al were vindicated. There is no evidence that Seth Rich, who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, leaked any documents.

I could not find anything in the Springer book about whether there was "interference," but the conclusion is that there was no evidence of pervasive or effective interference or any attempt to influence the election or communication with the Trump campaign. In comparison, many people outside the U.S. expressed their views on the 2024 election online, which could be described as foreign interference.

BTW Patrick makes no mention of Seth Rich in the passage I quoted or in any of his articles. I could find nothing about Vanden Heuvel's conclusions on what he meant or Patrick's explanation. Why it appears he was referring to Seth Rich, I cannot find what tweets he was replying to, since his tweet has been deleted. TFD (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

So no it does not say there was no interference, correct? So, what does it say that contradicts what we say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The later narrative was not that Russia attempted to swing the election toward Trump but that they were trying to stir division among Americans. Presumably, there would be no conflict in the U.S. today were it not for the Russian troll farm that created bots and made postings designed to create disharmony in the U.S. Immigration, transgender issues, wealth inequality, etc. are only divisive because Russia stirred up Americans.

I don't think the sources say that was not Russia's intent, it's just that we don't know. We do know however that the issues dividing Americans were not invented by Russians. TFD (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not correct; we know that Russia greatly preferred Trump and tried to help him, even though it also helped Jill Stein, and it also had accounts posing as a variety of different ideological positions to create chaos and discord or to exploit the news cycles in whichever way they had determined would advantage them.[6] Andre🚐 06:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Comparing the welcomed Russian interference to Iraqi WMDs is facile at best. What we know factually is that there were many meetings between known Russian agents and the Trump administration - we know this from Papadapolous, Manafort, Stone, and others. We also know that Guccifer 2.0 was working for Russian intelligence and we know what Don Jr. said - if it is what you say I love it, especially for later in the summer. Trump welcomed the Russian attacks and this is substantiated by bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report. Andre🚐 16:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Several authors of Russiagate compare it to the fabricated WMDs narrative which btw was also supported by mainstream media and leading Democrats at the time. But I don't want to argue the merits of current academic consensus, just point out that per WEIGHT, the article should not be based on speculation that is no longer supported in rs. TFD (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

If there is indeed an academic consensus, you would need to provide a source that explicitly says so. [00:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)]

and I see the Russiagate Revisited: The Aftermath of a Hoax and the Project Censored but I am inclined not to consider them authoritative - an attributed minority POV at best. Compare on the other side something like the books by Seth Abramson (Proof of Collusion, et al.) These are works of journalism. Andre🚐 01:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

As I said, the consensus appeared to change in 2022, following the Mueller report. I would point out that Springer is a leading academic publisher and it would be unusual for them to publish an anthology of articles about Russiagate, all of which debunked it. I also provided an article by Lawrence Patrick, who is a journalist, who says the consensus had changed. Of course being a journalist does not make him an expert.

Seth Abramson is a journalist and his book was published in 2018 by Simon and Schuster, which publishes popular books. Again, while his book may have reflected received opinion at the time, it seems to have changed since. He has not submitted his opinions to peer review.

Can you point to any academic papers or books published since 2022 that uphold the Russiagate narrative? TFD (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Simon and Schuster publishes academic books as well as popular work. The Mueller report actually confirmed a lot of the media reports, and added more detail, but Mueller declined to prosecute due to DOJ policy and Barr; as I said, Abramson, and the other 2 books, are all journalistic works. They are not academic work of the sort needed to memory hole tons of reporting and info. Another good one in this vein is House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia by Craig Unger. As far as I know nothing like a textbook or a serious historian's work has been written yet on the 2015 time period. I would probably consider citing:

P.S. I have read a little bit of the Russiagate Revisited book and I can see that some of it is faux-academic, e.g. citing Habermas and stuff. That is probably how it got published by Springer (and the fact that the authors are professors). But not all professors are equally good and this is clearly some hacky, fringey type stuff mixed with a bunch of the curational journalism. I think there might be things it can be used for, but clearly Ruth Deyermond[7] still wants to cite the Mueller report for ideas about Trump Tower Moscow or kompromat in 2023, so I think the idea that 2022 is a sea change and now Kathleen Hall Jamieson is no longer the main anchor point we should use is not the case. She is the most authoritative voice on this that we have right now that I am aware of, and I think the David Shimer book may be a very good source as well.

Andre🚐 02:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look through those sources. BTW AFAIK Simon & Schuster does not have an academic publishing division. They do not carry out the same reviews as academic publishers who send out copies of manuscripts to experts. That means that publication by Simon & Schuster does not assure the reliability of a book, unlike for example Springer. But the issue isn't reliability, it's WEIGHT. IOW how much influence has it had on experts. TFD (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

1) Simon and Schuster publishes academic books under their main imprint and under their higher ed and various divisions, and as far as review and desk copies, Simon and Schuster does do this (see [8][9] Requests for review copies from teachers or librarians must be sent via email to education.library@simonandschuster.com and include complete contact information...A desk copy of titles published by Simon & Schuster's Adult division that has been adopted for college and university course use is available free to professors teaching that course. Orders will only be shipped to a verifiable college or university address 2) A reliable academic publisher may be an indication of reliability but it is not a guarantee. Andre🚐 03:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It's clear from the links that they are not an academic publisher. Academic publishers have a procedure. See for example Routledge Authors page. Authors who have had academic papers published are invited to submit a proposal to an editor who then guides them through the process.

Academics may have various reasons to use a popular publisher. Sometimes, it's because it is faster and reaches a larger audience. Other times, it's because their book is polemical or their views are significantly different from the consensus. Or they may have no record of publishing articles on the subject in the book. Or they may be trying to present a topic using language that ordinary people could follow. TFD (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say they were an academic press, I said they publish academic books under their main imprint and under their higher ed divisions, and they offer review copies. For example, they distribute Oneworld Academic in the US, Barron's Educational Series, and some other publications that are texts or educational under their main imprint. The larger point is that reliability is not guaranteed by an academic press, and being published by a non-academic press does not detract from reliability. Reliability goes with the author, which is why self-published work by a reliable author is reliable. Andre🚐 01:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we reboot this discussion by avoiding mention of "academic"? It's a red herring. That is NOT a RS requirement for most topics, especially this one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is still a recent topic so it is expected that it would rely more on news media and other sources that are still reliable, and over time, the history books will be written. But responding to TFD's original query, the Renee DiResta piece which is from days ago, should put to rest the argument that somehow Russian interference to help and being welcomed by the Trump campaign was some kind of hoax or myth. Andre🚐 02:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I just finished reading her report, and it's good. Nothing has changed any of the conclusions or undermined all the investigations showing that Russia interfered to help Trump and harm Clinton, and that Trump welcomed and cooperated with it in a huge aiding and abetting operation of treasonous dimensions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

There are probably plenty of think pieces that "should put to rest" the claims of a hoax, but I daresay that in this extremely politicized controversy no commentary by any writer, no matter how learned, will "put to rest" such claims in the minds of those who make them. On the other side of the issue, no one needs convincing. Regarding this already excessively large article, I maintain my view, informed by site policies and common sense, that we should refrain from indefinitely padding it with long-winded quotations from every new commentary from only one side of the controversy while failing to add even a single word from the other, also available in RS. Actual new information should be added, as I did in the past day by describing the recently-released Ratcliffe "CIA Note" which reviewed the 2016 IC assessment. DonFB (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, put to rest in terms of Wikipedia, here, and what is supported by a consensus of RS. TFD challenged whether sources still went with the "narrative" as we present it: Russia interfered and the Trump campaign welcomed the interference and in some cases were aware of and cooperated with it. It is perfectly fine to want to trim or paraphrase differently, and that is a stylistic question. It is perfectly fine to debate the points that are debatable. What is not debatable, and should not be debated on Wikipedia, is whether the basic facts that all the reliable sources agree on (with the possible exception of the people in the Springer book we've been discussing that I argue is fringe). It is not a hoax. It is true that Mueller did not have enough evidence to charge conspiracy. He did however have enough evidence to charge obstruction, but opted not to. These facts are plentifully referenced in the RS as well as the primary source docs. Andre🚐 18:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article out today in the Lawfare blog by Renée DiResta, an Associate Research Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown, Retconning ‘Russiagate’. It makes reference to a few other interesting reports, The Tactics & Tropes of the Internet Research Agency, and The IRA, Social Media and Political Polarization in the United States, and others. That the Russians had favored the election of Donald Trump was not in question, nor was the judgment that they aspired to help....The Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) and its military intelligence agency, colloquially referred to as the GRU, demonstrably interfered in the 2016 election. These operations were not subtle. They unambiguously boosted Trump’s candidacy. They unambiguously denigrated Clinton...there was very little daylight between the findings of the two teams that completed reports. Each found that the IRA’s operation pushed a strikingly one-sided political line: Elevate Donald Trump, hobble Hillary Clinton, and dampen turnout among likely Democratic constituencies. ...Moscow was running parallel but complementary lines of effort. Military-intelligence hack-and-leak operations were running alongside troll-farm persuasion, with each ultimately geared to the same 2016 objective of hurting Clinton and boosting Trump. Over the longer time horizon, the operations were trying to divide American society. ...the truth remains: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It did so to help Trump and hurt Clinton. It relied on both trolls and hackers, memes and leaks, real-world events and digital manipulation. This conclusion was not remotely controversial at the time. And it isn’t controversial now—not even based on the actual findings of the Tradecraft Review of the 2016 ICA. It’s therefore disappointing to see the CIA director and his deputy on X amplifying allegations to the contrary. Rewriting history doesn’t clarify anything Andre🚐 19:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed! Renée DiResta knows her stuff. I have added a blurb, but feel free to improve it, as she addresses many things.

I'm beginning to think we have enough RS coverage now (after mainstream RS have ignored these bizarre right wing theories for a long time) to turn the redirect at Russiagate (conspiracy theory) into its own article. We need to cover this subject better as "Russiagate" is a major right wing conspiracy theory, just as important as Trump's Big Lie about a non-existent "stolen election", which should also have its own article. All of MAGA, and every single one of his appointees and Congress critters, must believe, or at least give lip service to, these lies. His whole administration is based on a foundation of multiple lies and conspiracy theories, hence this description by The Washington Post, which said his frequent repetition of claims he knew to be false amounted to a campaign based on disinformation. There is hardly any aspect of his administration that is not based on clear disinformation and the pushing of lies and cover-ups of his misdeeds. Russiagate is just one of them. The topic is worthy of its own article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Due and undue weight says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." It is therefore relevant to determine what the academic position is.

In academics, whether chemistry or English literature, scholars publish papers which may or may not receive the attention of other scholars, and this allows us to determine the relative weight of various opinions.

In this case, the Mueller Report provided a lot of evidence which stimulated new papers on the topic. These appear to have revised the earlier view that actions by the Internet Research Agency influenced the outcome of the election or even that it was their intention. See for example in Nature Communications, which Andre kindly provided above.

I don't see why DiResta's article on the LAWFARE blog should be seen as the final word. For one thing, she does not say that she is presenting a consensus opinion, but actually criticizing academics for straying from the original story. "Scholars have tried—one paper got creative with Twitter data, assessing that the Twitter campaign appeared to have no meaningful impact on voting behavior." Ironically, she was referencing the Communications paper that Andre provided. BTW, could you please explain why when you provided this article you didn't mention what DiResta had said this about it?

TFD (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The papers I provided show that the consensus is that the IRA wanted to influence the election. Whether they did so, ie whether their efforts were successful in swinging the result or whether that would have happened anyway, is not clear, and we can never know because it is a counterfactual. That will be debated. Some argue they did, such as Jamieson and DiResta, and some argue that they did not have that effect. But it is not up for debate that they wanted to, and had official state support from Russia to do so. The Springer collection of articles are WP:FRINGE because they argue against a factual series of events that we all witnessed in real-time and cannot be memory-holed, and indeed, the available sources agree on. Oh also, I gave the Nature article before I had read the DiResta article, in fact before that article was published I think. Andre🚐 05:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

A nice little summary:[10]

While the memo criticizes aspects of the report's methodology—such as reliance on unverified sources like the Steele dossier—it does not disprove the original conclusions or address the substantial evidence supporting them, including findings by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

“This report doesn’t change any of the underlying evidence—in fact it doesn’t even address any of that evidence,” says Brian Taylor, director the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs. Taylor suggests the report may have been intended to reinforce Trump’s claims that investigations into his ties to Russia are part of a Democratic hoax.

“Good intelligence analysts will tell you their job is to speak truth to power,” Taylor says. “If they tell the leader what he wants to hear, you often get flawed intelligence.”

Read more in the Associated Press article, “New CIA report criticizes investigation into Russia’s support for Trump in 2016.”

Patel and Ratcliffe are providing "flawed intelligence" to Trump. Nothing from them or Trump can be considered remotely reliable. We need to formalize that at WP:RSP.

They aren't satisfied with providing disinformation to Trump, they are pushing it out to the public, contrary to normal practice: "Intelligence agencies regularly perform after-action reports to learn from past operations and investigations, but it’s uncommon for the evaluations to be declassified and released to the public."[11]

Some editors think we should add their disinfo as "balancing" information in our articles, as proposed above:

"Regarding this already excessively large article, I maintain my view, informed by site policies and common sense, that we should refrain from indefinitely padding it with long-winded quotations from every new commentary from only one side of the controversy while failing to add even a single word from the other, also available in RS. Actual new information should be added, as I did in the past day by describing the recently-released Ratcliffe "CIA Note" which reviewed the 2016 IC assessment. User:DonFB 08:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not how it works here (but that's how it works at Justapedia). We write what RS say with the framing from the RS, not the framing from the unreliable garbage they are describing. We actually are adding more than a "single word from the other" side, but using RS to frame it properly. We don't engage in false balance here or add nonsense in a manner that makes it seem plausible. Patel and Ratcliffe are pushing disinformation, and we are documenting that they are doing that. That is not "padding" the article. That is covering the development of this "Russiagate hoax" nonsense. Trump will not stop until he has forced the world to accept his false versions of events. Wikipedia does not support doing that.

This is not about a difference of opinion between opposing RS which we must give equal weight. Consensus in RS has not changed on this matter, even though the majority of sources are unreliable ones (those that MAGA uses), and that makes it seem to them as if there has been some shift in consensus. There is still "only one side of the controversy" backed by RS, so that's the one that gets all the weight and coverage here.

(Personal attack removed) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Quit attacking and ranting about other editors. You know better, I have removed your personal attacks. PackMecEng (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Re-reading the conversation, this is indeed very much a question about Wikipedia. Does the minority POV clause of NPOV extend to crazy ideas, like that anthropogenic climate change is NOT threatening to destroy the global food web? Or are those rightly relegated? In my view, the point of DUE and UNDUE is not to arbitrarily maintain a certain level of detail, because all sourced, interesting, and valid details should find somewhere to live, but always about carefully excluding the crazy ideas, because Wikipedia is supposed to be mainstream. And not just regular mainstream like Jimmy Fallon, but smart, deep, and well-considered, and bucking the trend of urban legends that are commonly believed and repeated but lack in actual clue. If you arrive here opining about the intelligence reports from US and Dutch sources being unreliable because they are Western sources, alarm bells go off. You are stepping outside the bounds of RS: the best RS do not engage in conspiracy thinking to cast doubt on, and poke holes in, the "official" reports of the US intelligence community unless there is a reason to do so, and we regularly deprecate state sources that appear to be engaging in propaganda according to a narrative being pushed by another country essentially making up ghost stories or folktales about the truth. You could say that's an English bias but the biggest English-speaking countries the US, UK, Australia, NZ, etc., all participate as far as I know in the reality-based community of events, and RS policy says to tell it like it is in English sources, not Pravda. So minority POVs ok, and many questions are indeed split 50/50 or 75/25 such that there is either a contentious debate or a well-represented legitimate view of a different perspective, often clusterable into its political niche. But some crazy ideas are excluded. So it is ok to opine that the Russians didn't have a big or measurable effect on the election, but not that the Russians weren't behind a campaign of interference. If you believe that Assad is actually still in power or that Bush ordered 9/11, here is the door. Avoiding structural bias is one thing, but Wikipedia is by necessity inherently Western, liberal (meaning the writ large generic version of that term), enlightened, rationalistic, materialistic, modern, and positivist. Other philosophies or worldviews may be treated but not at equal prominence.

Recently, Liberia met with Trump and he was unaware that the official language there is of course English, as a former US colony, a 19th century colonization project steadfastly supported by abolitionists at the time. I mention this because increasingly we live in a horseshoe theory environment with Democratic Socialists of America and the MAGA Republicans both engaging in their own version of a reality tunnel. On the one hand we have DNC rigs everything, Dems are on the corporate take, and election trutherism about 2024 or vote for Jill Stein because Biden/Harris were insufficiently progressive, despite being the most union-friendly, climate-forward and anti-corporate-monopolies major party ticket in generations, maybe ever, etc., living in a world of basically fantasy politics where nothing is real and there's nothing to get hung about. And then the MAGA version to deny climate change, RFK vax science, election trutherism about 2020, Obama was a secret Muslim from Kenya, and so on. It really started with swiftboating Kerry, and this is just the latest incarnation of that. I am sympathetic to the idea that there must be a conservative voice and a conservative position just as there is a liberal, or moderate centrist, position. Far left and far right positions do not get equal time proportional to how far outside the mainstream they are. If we can articulate that clearly, it belongs here. There may be some topics where the minority is being trampled on a bit by mistaking tunnel vision for NPOV. I do not think the 2016 Russian interference campaign can be shown to be one of those. It makes sense that Trump thought Liberians probably do not speak English because he is not very well-educated and he has a superficial knowledge of issues, or maybe he is mentally deteriorating (as was claimed, without evidence, about Biden by the left) and has a cognitive issue leading him to forget that the Liberians do not mainly speak Swahili, or whatever. That is why we do not write what Trump says. He is not a reliable source and neither are the cronies in his administration. By contrast, the material put out by the Obama and Biden administrations are reliable, as far as I know, for the most part. We do not essentially need symmetry in this. Maybe one day there will be a DSA president and we will have to take their views with a grain of salt, too. Andre🚐 20:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Due and undue weight says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

The first task is therefore to determine what the major viewpoint is. This is not a matter of choosing between Democratic or Republican narratives or evaluating the evidence. Instead, we need to see what expert opinion is, that is, academic analysis.

Professor X writing for Foreign affairs, speaking to the media or even writing a book for Simon and Schuster tells us nothing about how their opinions are received in mainstream academic literature.

How do we determine what the mainatream view is?

BTW, I don't remember the Left challenging climate change, Kerry's war record, vaccinations, the 2020 election or Obama's religion. The only other time far right Republicans were in line with left-wing Democrats was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. But then, only six Republican congressmen {including Ron Paul) voted against the resolution, while fully 60% of Democrats voted against. Plenty of moderate Democrats opposed the resolution. In fact, Barack Obama, not yet a senator, openly opposed the resolution. TFD (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:FRINGE says stuff too. Want to quote that? How about the Nature Communications article that you liked? Or responding to the part about how it is not up for grabs that the Russians did X and the Trump campaign did Y? The Nature Communications article clearly states, despite the Russian foreign influence campaign’s apparent scale and intentions, one should be skeptical about its potential effects. The intentions are not in question despite your inaccurate paraphrase above, These appear to have revised the earlier view that actions by the Internet Research Agency influenced the outcome of the election or even that it was their intention. See for example in Nature Communications, P.S. if you aren't aware of left anti-vaxxers, you should spend more time with the crowd of Joseph Mercola, Naomi Wolf, Gary Null, Del Bigtree, even arguably Bill Maher, Jenny McCarthy, etc. Andre🚐 00:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

None of those people are left-wing or have had any connection with the DSA or been members of any other left-wing organizations. Naomi Wolf once worked for Bill Clinton before moving to the far right. Maybe you are confusing her with Naomi Klein?

Sorry if my mention of the Communications article was confusing. I meant that there is no consensus in reliable sources that the Kremlin's intention was to swing the election to Donald Trump. The Communications article reported their research on the effects of the RSA twitter trolling. Mind you, that is just one part of the total allegations.

To summarize the article, the writers found that the trolls targeted committed Republican voters and said that in order to sway the election, they should have targeted uncommitted Republicans, independents and Sanders supporters. They don't explain why, given their intentions, this did not happen, but that's probably because it was outside the scope of their research. TFD (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

They are left-wing (are you saying they are right wing?), and there is definitely an overlap among DSA, Green Party, and things like Mercola (though obviously the number of household name DSA figures is pretty short to begin with), but let's drop that as it is scarcely relevant. There is a consensus that the Kremlin's intention was to swing the election to Trump. The Nature Communications article reinforces this. It states, although the alleged intention of the Russian foreign influence campaign on social media was to influence the attitudes and behavior of voters in ways favorable to Donald Trump, the extent to which exposure was concentrated among a small number of users, or those most or least likely to be affected, is unknown Their use of "alleged" here doesn't mean that all the other sources which agree that this was their intention go away. But again, let's not move the goalposts. The question raised in the Springer pieces, among others, is whether the Russian interference happened at all. The point of the Nature Communications piece is that it studies the Russian interference campaign and obviously confirms that it took place. The fact that they weren't very effective because they mostly reached committed Republicans (in the studied dataset) is pertinent to the question of what effect the campaign had, but not to their intention per se. For example, many of the accounts they were operating were targeted at for example, black voters. Take a look at the other reports which have real examples of the memes or posts they used, many of which were critical of Clinton. You write that they targeted Republicans and that is a misread: Nature Communications merely say that this was the group with the highest concentration of exposure based on provided data from Twitter: respondents with the highest levels of exposure to posts from Russian foreign influence accounts were those arguably least likely to need influencing: those who identified themselves as highly partisan Republicans, who were already likely favorable to Donald Trump. Nowhere does it say they were exclusively or even primarily targeting that group, and it should be obvious if you dig into the raw data they were not. They operated personas across the political spectrum much of which was designed to persuade. Andre🚐 03:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be circular reasoning. If someone is an anti-vaxxer and not far righr, they must be left-wing, because of the horseshoe theory. If an academic paper does not support what you think happened, it must be fringe.

Also, when you ask me to look at memes or posts critical of Hillary Clinton, you are missing the point. Editors are not supposed to weigh evidence and report their conclusions in articles, they are supposed to report the conclusions of experts as reported in reliable sources. (See NOR.) It doesn't matter whether they are correct or whether they supported or opposed the Clinton campaign. TFD (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

No, nothing circular about it. That is an extremely uncharitable interpretation of what I wrote, and I don't see how it can be good faith. There's nothing right-wing about the people I mentioned. You said Naomi Wolf worked for Bill Clinton. Is Bill Clinton right-wing? I have made my point exhaustively; you need to crossreference the many sources I posted. I am not doing an ounce of OR, you need to acutally read all of the sources instead of handwaving them away without engaging with any substance or admitting the basic truths here. Every source says that the Russians favored and helped Trump, and none say otherwise, except the fringe Springer articles which include articles that propose that Russian hackings didn't take place because an internal DNC person gave the info, or other nonsense. We know for a fact that the Russians helped the Trump campaign and had many contacts with Trump campaign officials. Andre🚐 23:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Under the Horseshoe Theory, which you defended at 20:15, 11 July 2025, "advocates of the far-left and the far-right,,,closely resemble each other." The examples you gave were the DSA and MAGA. Clinton Democrats cannot be described as far left. They would be part of the "vital center." The only evidence you have that Naomi Wolf is left-wing is that she is anti-vax and not right wing. In fact, reliable sources now uniformly describe her as right-wing.

I read the sources you provided that I commented on. However, most of your sources fail rs per WP:NEWSORG as commentary published in news media.

My concern is that the article reflect mainstream opinion as it stands. I don't care what "we know for a fact." I'm like Lt. Gerard. I only care about conclusions reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

That is simply not true at all and you are now making statements that are not reflective of the discussion at all. Regarding the horseshoe theory, indeed, left-wing and right-wing antivaxxers unite to deny science, and similarly left-wing writers like Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi or the Nation guy you mentioned are now in the Russiagate-denial space. Regarding NEWSORG, it says news sources are presumed reliable, nothing about that policy excludes the use of news media; and nothing I gave was opinion commentary in news media, although I did offer a few books by journalists like Peter Baker. But, most of the sources I gave are reliable academic sources, including the full-length Mueller report book and a book by Peter Strzok, but more importantly, Rigged by David Shimer is not a newsorg. Kathleen Hall Jamieson is not a newsorg. Additionally to the 7 books I gave [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] reliable academically sourced papers, none of which are news. And of course the Renee DiResta article which is by a reliable academic and no news. Once again, you are simply wrong and entirely off-base, and I am tired of discussing with someone who is neither good faith nor even accurately characterizing what has been discussed. Nearly all reliable sources in an overwhelming consensus agree that the Russians conducted the influence campaign to help Trump. You misrepresented the Nature Communications paper.

Here are quotes from The IRA, Social Media and Political Polarization in the United States, 2012-2018, the Oxford paper with 3 Oxford coauthors. Worth noting that Nature Communications looks at Twitter only and not Facebook or Instagram. Russia’s Internet Research Agency (IRA) launched an extended attack on the United States by using computational propaganda to misinform and polarize US voters..the IRA’s Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter campaigns reached tens of millions of users ...IRA activities focused on the US began on Twitter in 2013 but quickly evolved into a multi-platform strategy involving Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube amongst other platforms. Russia's IRA activities were designed to polarize the US public and interfere in elections by: campaigning for African American voters to boycott elections or follow the wrong voting procedures in 2016, and more recently for Mexican American and Hispanic voters to distrust US institutions; encouraging extreme right-wing voters to be more confrontational; and spreading sensationalist, conspiratorial, and other forms of junk political news and misinformation to voters across the political spectrum..he five most shared and the five most liked posts focused on divisive issues, with pro-gun ownership content, anti-immigration content pitting immigrants against veterans, content decrying police violence against African Americans, and content that was anti-Muslim, anti-refugee, anti-Obama, and pro-Trump. IRA posts tended to mimic conservative views against gun control and for increased regulation of immigrants. In some cases, terms such as “parasites” were used to reference immigrants and others expressed some tolerance of extremist views.

Here are quotes from the Tactics and Tropes paper coauthored by DiResta which she references in the Lawfare article, and a Columbia journalism prof[17]: Broadly, Russian interference in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016 took three distinct forms, one of which is within the scope of our analysis: 1. Attempts to hack online voting systems (as detailed by a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report) 2. A cyber-attack targeting the Democratic National Committee, executed by the GRU, which led to a controlled leak via Wikileaks of email data related to the Clinton Presidential campaign team 3. A sweeping and sustained social influence operation consisting of various coordinated disinformation tactics aimed directly at US citizens, designed to exert political influence and exacerbate social divisions in US culture...The most prolific IRA efforts on Facebook and Instagram specifically targeted Black American communities and appear to have been focused on developing Black audiences and recruiting Black Americans as assets. The IRA created an expansive cross-platform media mirage targeting the Black community, which shared and cross-promoted authentic Black media to create an immersive influence ecosystem. The IRA had a very clear bias for then-candidate Trump’s that spanned from early in the campaign and throughout the data set. A substantial portion of political content articulated pro-Donald Trump sentiments, beginning with the early primaries. Aside from an extremely small set of early posts supporting Rand Paul, this preference was consistent throughout the Right-leaning IRA-created communities. Some of the pages targeting traditionally Left-leaning audiences, such as United Muslims, very occasionally broached the idea that their members might consider Trump as well. Comprehensive Anti-Hillary Clinton Operations A substantial portion of political content articulated anti-Hillary Clinton sentiments among both Right and Left-leaning IRA-created communities. There was no pro-Clinton content on Facebook or Instagram, aside from a single United Muslims Facebook Event promoting a rally encouraging Muslims to publicly demonstrate in support of Clinton’s candidacy. However, the bulk of the content on that same page was anti-Clinton, and the anti-Clinton motive behind this ostensibly pro-Clinton post is transparent. There were some pro-Clinton Twitter posts (tweets and retweets), however, the developed Left-wing Twitter personas were still largely anti-Clinton and expressed pro-Bernie Sanders and pro-Jill Stein sentiments. These tactics and goals overlapped with the pro-Trump portion of the operation

Here is a quote from Analyzing the Digital Traces of Political Manipulation: The 2016 Russian Interference Twitter Campaign: Text analysis on the content shared by trolls reveals that they had a mostly conservative, pro-Trump agenda.

Here is yet another study from 2022 that hasn't been discussed yet here: : [18][19] we believe Russian interference succeeded in moving the needle toward President Trump Andre🚐 17:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I will read through them.

I would like to point out that the Mueller Report is not a "reliable academic source," its a report by a police agency and its reliability is determined by its reception in reliable sources. I am sure we can agree that nothing written by the current director, Kash Patel should be considered inherently reliable just because it was written by an FBI director.

Policy on news media is clear. While respected news reporting is reliable for facts, analyses and opinion published by them are not, per NEWSORG. Saying for example that Saddam Hussein has WMDs is analysis, not news, and therefore we could not use the New York Times as a source that he had WMDs. Nor could be use the conclusions of the CIA. Instead we would have to patiently wait until an academic consensus was achieved.

BTW, Glenn Greenwald is a journalist and therefore his opinions on Russian interference are irrelevant to determining weight. The same could be said for any journalists or other non-experts. TFD (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Still feels like we are entirely talking past each other. You accused me of using news sources but I have not provided a single news source, opinion, fact, or otherwise, so it continues to be a red herring and a mischaracterization of the sources provided. I never said the Mueller Report was a reliable academic source. There is a 2024 book called Interference: The Inside Story of Trump, Russia, and the Mueller Investigation. That is what I mean by the Mueller report book. This book should be presumed reliable though some of it may need specific attribution. The three authors are now lecturers in the academic circuit[20] and the book is being picked up as a text by university bookstores. My point about Greenwald was in reference to the horseshoe thing and the Nation guy. I never offered any opinion from Greenwald. Andre🚐 18:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Reply to Valjean:

You wrote:

"Patel and Ratcliffe are providing 'flawed intelligence' to Trump. Nothing from them or Trump can be considered remotely reliable. We need to formalize that at WP:RSP."

So, do you now propose quarantining the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc. in RSP because they publish statements by these people?

But you also wrote:

"We actually are adding more than a 'single word from the other' side, but using RS to frame it properly."

This seems to contradict your first statement above that such comments must not be published in this encyclopedia. DonFB (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. We don't publish nonsense and lies from the POV of the liar or from unreliable sources. When they are cited in RS, we are then allowed to document them and their nonsense, but we do it by framing it the way RS do, which is to call out the lies and expose the attempts to push conspiracy theories. We label lies as lies. We do not engage in a false balance by covering both sides equally, leaving it up to readers to figure out what is true or not true. We only do that when there is a real difference of opinion in RS. That is common in the scientific world.

If you look at the top of my user page, you'll see my inclusionist position. This is an application of the more modern interpretation of NPOV, the one that research has documented immediately improves the credibility of Wikipedia. See my essay, which discusses the research on this subject: How to increase Wikipedia's credibility. There I link to the research. You can read that, and then my essay, if you feel like it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

In our discussions, the issue of false balance you raise is a red herring. I'm pretty sure you're against it, and you won't find an instance where I recommended it. Work to improve this or any article. Spare editors your crusader's sermons about the barbarians at the gate, and don't harvest every pundit's latest commentary to load up this article as if it's a platform to broadcast your support of the RS narrative. If a pundit actually introduces new facts, that can be a legitimate addition to the article. If you're adding it only because you want to crush the other side, stop. DonFB (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Content about Kash Patel that needs to be prepared for inclusion

This content was deleted. (See section above this one.) It needs to be examined, shortened, and summarized. Feel free to use the source for more and other content to use. It's currently too long and should focus on Patel as a denier who seeks to distract from the findings about Russian election interference and Trump's welcoming cooperation with that interference. He uses the word "Russiagate" to deride the findings of American and allied intelligence agencies, multiple government investigations, and the RS coverage of their findings:

On June 30, 2025, David Corn wrote a letter to podcaster Joe Rogan, which he published in Mother Jones. He said that FBI director Kash Patel had "played" Rogan:

Let me start with Patel's remarks about what he derisively calls 'Russiagate.' .. Patel presented to you and your audience a highly skewed and false narrative...

And this is Patel's magic trick. It's a diversion. He wants you and others to fixate on the issue of a search warrant and not pay attention to the bigger story: Russia attacked the 2016 election to help Trump, and Trump aided and abetted Moscow by denying this assault, thus providing cover to Vladimir Putin...

Several government investigations have concluded that Russia mounted a covert operation to hack and leak Democratic emails and other materials to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Trump. Trump and Patel, though, deny this...

Yet Patel won't acknowledge even the existence of this Russian operation. Joe, why is that? Why isn't he—or you—pissed off that Russia messed with our election? Why is the FBI director covering for Putin?.. I ask you, Joe: What's worse—the FBI screwing up one FISA application or Trump helping Russia subvert an election for his own benefit? Is it a close call?

Over the past nine years Trump and loyalists like Patel have done their mightiest to cover up Trump's foul deed—his aiding of the Russian attack—pushing a competing narrative that lets Putin and Russia off scot-free.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed:

"Political journalist David Corn criticized Kash Patel, the FBI director in the second Trump administration, for using the term 'Russiagate' in an interview and failing to acknowledge Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election." [ref]

As the person who deleted the very long-winded Corn quotation, I offer this as the essence of Corn's commentary about Patel. I am not recommending, however, that it be added to the article, as it is merely a pundit's rehash of the issues already covered in the article. I invite other editors to opine on what value it would add to the article. DonFB (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving Corn quotation out, but I also am fine with this paraphrase of it. I think Corn is right but he is just another pundit. Andre🚐 18:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

We need to document the notable people who push the false conspiracy theory, and Patel is pretty significant as the FBI Director. This lets readers know who can and cannot be trusted and their agendas. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"I think Corn is right but he is just another pundit." This, in my view, is the appropriate level-headed response to the existence of the Corn commentary. On the other hand, "This lets readers know who can and cannot be trusted and their agendas" is an overly politicized pov-pushing wrongheaded approach to editing this encyclopedia. DonFB (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Let's focus on the questions of content and stop with the passive aggressive sniping at each other because it is unproductive. Valjean is entitled to his opinion. There are many issues I agree with Valjean on. There are at least some issues I agree with DonFB on, not the least because he said I am level-headed, but seriously. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on the relative prominence of Corn and whether his opinion on Patel is germane here. I can see the argument that it's a bit far afield. I an also see the argument that it is relevant. So I'm basically neutral on it, leaning toward thinking that someone like Corn has no special knowledge or relevance and is mainly a journalist and commentator. We do not need to include every commentator. I think Corn is right but there is probably a stronger or better way to make that point. Andre🚐 03:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

An editor who wants to improve an article should focus on just that--improving the article. An editor should not use almost every Talk post or edit summary to lecture, preach to and harangue other editors about his interpretation of the sources and how Wikipedia must stand against the forces of darkness. And an editor should not pile on with every available pundit's comment to overload an already bloated article as if it were his personal platform for promulgating his views. DonFB (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Don, my comments are in response to your attempts to skew the narrative here by treating unreliable sources and Trump's envoys as if they were credible. They are not. If you would stop arguing for that, I wouldn't need to explain how NPOV, balance, fringe, advocacy, RS, etc. work to you. If you would stop doing that and stop complaining about my explanations, we'd be fine. We could get down to building and improving the article.

Instead, you constantly personalize things by criticizing me. Stop it. WP:Focus on content. This is not the place to advocate the "Russiagate hoax" POV or expect we will give sources that push that POV the time of day. We won't do that. I will always defend our policies when other editors appear to be abusing or not understanding them. We are not Conservapedia or Justapedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You didn't specify which unreliable source you think I promoted--since I haven't. You seem to be reading in a mirror or something, reversing the meaning of what you're seeing. On the matter of npov, balance and fringe: As I've described before, an editor who loads multiple paragraphs of quotations from members of a major U.S. political party into a section, while limiting a quotation from members of the other major party to less than one sentence in that section--sourcing them both from the same primary document--is not an editor who is complying with npov or appropriate balance. By "balance", I don't mean "equal". But a ratio of about ten to one when quoting opposing politicians from the two major U.S. parties using the same primary source is evidence of editorial bias that cannot be justified by talking about RS. No site policy permits such favoritism. Following up that gambit, which I corrected, you've been trying to stuff the already badly bloated article with the latest and greatest long-winded quotations from pundits on one side of the partisan divide while introducing virtually no new information into the article, justifying such one-sided editing in Talk as necessary to prevent apocalypse. DonFB (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You wrote above: "You didn't specify which unreliable source you think I promoted--since I haven't." Somehow I didn't connect the following previous statement of yours with that: "Actual new information should be added, as I did in the past day by describing the recently-released Ratcliffe "CIA Note" which reviewed the 2016 IC assessment."

I now see you added that using a RS to a different section, not the "Trump's "Russiagate hoax" claims" section, and did a pretty good job. That content remains, thus showing the tacit approval of other editors, myself included.

My focus has been on the "Russiagate hoax" section, and I have been trying to add "new information" to that section (which you removed), so I seem to have been confused by my not noticing your addition was to a different section. Then your initial personalized attack here (which set the tone for our further conversations here), and your deletion of the David Corn/Kash Patel stuff (this section), led me to think you were trying to undermine the "Russiagate hoax" section's point and attempts to add "new information" to that section. I fear some of the conflict with Sarah777 above may have also rubbed off on you, and that's unfair. I owe you a big apology for all that confusion of mine. My bad. I'll try to do better to notice the context of things, and also try not to conflate you with the POV of others on this page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for a gracious note. DonFB (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard has released documents, existence of a “treasonous” plot

Maybe this is relevant for this article. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released documents from the time period that she says prove the existence of a “treasonous” plot to undermine President Trump and persuade the public that there was something illegitimate about his victory in 2016. "Over a hundred documents that we released, on Friday, really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama, just weeks before he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected." Obama orchestrated Russiagate collusion hoax, says Tulsi Gabbard. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we can add that claim. Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Not without the proper debunking. Obama officials were concerned about Russian influence, which was real.[21] – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Have they reponded this this "realese" yet? Slatersteven (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't know, but other Democrats have, as in the NPR source I linked. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The link is an opinion piece. Gabbard argues that these conclusions are hypocritical and poke holes – if not directly contradict – the intelligence community's 2017 assessment that Russian attempted to influence the election. But Obama officials never claimed that Russian hackers had successfully changed votes or hacked election infrastructure at scale. The 2017 assessment focuses on Russian influence, from social media disinformation networks, hack-and-leak campaigns, Russian bot farms and other more psychological efforts made by Russian actors. Intelligence community experts acknowledge that Russian hacking targeting election infrastructure was likely limited and aimed at gathering intelligence. Democrats were quick to criticize the new ODNI publication as contradictory to previous reviews of the assessment, as well as dishonest and politically motivated.[22] I say we leave this out for now. No there there. Andre🚐 21:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard has been on TV discussing this "opinion". Have you seen the documents that reveal? It may be is very relevant for inclusion in this article... 24.194.32.135 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The documents are a WP:PRIMARY source. I have not seen them yet, but let's give it some time. We do not need to be active participants in a publicity campaign. We can afford to wait and see how the documents are contextualized by the relevant experts. Andre🚐 22:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Not really, it's just something she ginned up to help distract people from the crisis over the Epstein files and how it's making Trump panic. If there was any actual documentation of treason, they'd have referred it for an investigation, not started jumping up and down shouting about it. Remember, Trump doesn't really know what 'treason' or 'coup' even mean. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It's the truth. You have no idea that this is "ginned up", just opinion. Bias editing is not a Wikipedia thang. Just because Obama has immunity, does not make this untrue. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

'Biased', not 'bias'.

And of course I know that it is being faked, you can just read what reliable sources are saying about it, or the bipartisan report that was put out years ago by the group led by Rubio, or the earlier reporting on the whole thing.

But if you can find a reliable source discussing it, you're always welcome to suggest additions to the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

NewsNation, Newsmax, FoxNews Mark Levin, Sean Hannity all report on this subject. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Paragons of neutrality, they are. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

OMG! Shades of Breitbart. Those are among the worst sources on the internet, straight out of the MAGA bubble rabbit hole. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Well if every "Reliable Source" refuse to discuss this subject... Does not make it untrue. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

There's a reliable source linked in the thread above this that points out the flaws in their claims in some detail.

Try finding a source that isn't famous for lying and spreading political propaganda. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

All of those are famous for their dishonesty and partisanship. It's reliable sources that you need. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

As others have said, those sources don't cut the mustard. Andre🚐 02:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is the one saying this on the TV broadcasts. It is merely being reported on NewsNation, Newsmax, FoxNews, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That is not what she said, though. It's true that something attributed to her could or should eventually be in this article. Andre🚐 03:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

And? Tulsi Gabbard is famously a nutjob, but more importantly she’s a primary source.

If you want to put this kind of thing into Wikipedia, you’d need to have a sane, neutral, source that discussed it. The encyclopedia isn’t here to help Trump distract people from the Epstein files. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard is in a position of authority, she is not the primary source, she is providing discovery. She also has access to classified documents. Do you have this access? Please share. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

She's in actor in the drama. She is notable for her attributed statements, but she doesn't get to be treated as an unbiased source. Historians and expert commentators on these matters will interpret and react to her statements. We don't write articles based on the word of Obama either. Andre🚐 04:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

We have access to the (de)classified documents Jibolba (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard is a respected official hired by President Trump... No need to talk it out, we know what it's all about.. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course she isn’t a “respected official”? She’s literally in a cult and supported the dictator of Syria, what are you talking about? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"Respected officials" don't get hired by Trump. "Respected officials" don't tell him only what he wants to hear. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"Respected Officials" are all President Trump deals with.. He's is working for, not against USA and your future. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Now you’re just wandering off into partisan ranting. Discuss the article, not your feelings about Trumpism as a whole.

Reliable sources, remember? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

He's a casino-bankrupting rapist and pathological narcissist who "loves the poorly educated". Working for the USA is the last thing he'd do. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Here are a couple new sources:

• Public record contradicts US spy chief’s Russia-gate ‘conspiracy’ accusations. ODNI Gabbard says Obama-era officials said something they never said.
• Gabbard Garbles 2016 ‘Russiagate’ Intelligence. Her memo is smoke and mirrors—but it boosts both MAGA and Kremlin narratives.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard is on TV tonight discussing this. RUSSIAGATE COVER-UP. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

ONE CAN TEND UNNECESSARILY TO SOUND LIKE ONE WEARS A METAPHORICAL HAT OF TINFOIL WHEN ONE WRITES ON THE WIKIPEDIA TALK PAGE ABOUT COVER-UPS IN ALL CAPS. Conspiracy theories are still conspiracy theories when they are pushed by official state actors. The question is what has actually been revealed. Not much, we may surmise. Andre🚐 05:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

So I went to a hot dog stand, I seen a man, who thought I was a communist. Half of the people can be part right all of the time, some of the people can be all right part of the time, but all the people can't be all right all of the time.[Special:Contributions/24.194.32.135|24.194.32.135]] (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Those are not credible sources 2605:59C8:25E5:D508:27CD:CE69:ABF5:EC94 (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see either in the list of unreliable sources, what fact(s) do you think they are wrong about? And based on what? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

And this is why I don’t rely on Wikipedia for the ‘facts’…we have video montages of propagandists stating “Russia Hacked the Election” - which as we already know was BS. 50.83.43.228 (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Nobody claimed Russia hacked the election, Russia hacked the DNC. Andre🚐 06:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Since you aren’t able to explain why you think those sources are unreliable it makes it seem like you just don’t like them.

And the public reports don’t say Russia “hacked the election.” They say that Russian military intelligence hacked the DNC to help Trump. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

A second draft "schematic" of how to write this up:

"In July 2025 Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released previously classified documents that she alleged showed a "treasonous conspiracy" by the Obama administration to assert that Russian election interference in 2016 helped Donald Trump. An Obama spokesman said Gabbard's "bizarre allegations are ridiculous". Gabbard sought to undermine evidence that Russian president Vladimir Putin wanted to boost Trump. She said the documents showed that Obama intelligence agency officials essentially reversed their opinion about Russian actions and capabilities. Gabbard said that before the election, intelligence officials said Russia did not pose a serious threat to the U.S. election. She said that after Trump's victory, the documents showed that intelligence officials "suppressed" their earlier findings and described Russian actions as intervening to help Trump.

Democrats responded by saying no information has been released contradicting the "widely accepted conclusion" that Russia worked to influence the U.S. election, but did not physically change any votes. Democrats accused the Trump administration of attacking Obama to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein matter."

Plenty of RS are available; here's two I used for this draft: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2l01ek0y7o https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/us/politics/trump-russia-obama-gabbard.html

DonFB (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That is a start. But let's be clear. Gabbard did not say what you just said. And that is not an accurate paraphrase of what Gabbard did say. Andre🚐 06:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

How would you phrase it? DonFB (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

For starters, Gabbard is wrong, and this was already fact-checked by the AP, and our coverage needs to also state that Gabbard is incorrect, and put "false" in quotes as the claims are not false. As far as your text, Gabbard did not say Putin was not "directing efforts to interfere," so that goes further than what she said and is not a fair paraphrase. It is true, however, and I would say something more like, "Gabbard sought to undermine claims that Putin wanted to boost Trump, despite the bipartisan reports and Putin's own statements to the contrary" Per AP, "cites a handful of emails from 2016 in which officials conclude Russia had no intention of manipulating the U.S. vote count through cyberattacks on voting systems. President Barack Obama’s administration never alleged voting infrastructure was tampered with. Rather, officials have said, Russian operatives hacked emails of prominent Democrats that were subsequently released through WikiLeaks and launched a covert social media campaign to sow discord and inflame U.S. public opinion. More than two dozen Russians were indicted in 2018 in connection with those efforts. Republican-led investigations in Congress have affirmed that conclusion, and the emails that Gabbard released do not contradict that finding.... CLAIM: “There was a shift, a 180-degree shift, from the intelligence community’s assessment leading up to the election to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously.” — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. There was no shift.The emails Gabbard released show that a Department of Homeland Security official in August 2016 told then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper there was “no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.” The public assessment the Obama administration made public in January 2017 reached the same conclusion: “DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.” ... CLAIM: The Obama administration “manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.” — Gabbard on Truth Social Wednesday. [23] Andre🚐 20:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

This phrase is ok:

"Gabbard sought to undermine claims that Putin wanted to boost Trump".

This next phrase would need close referencing or adjustment:

"despite the bipartisan reports and Putin's own statements to the contrary".

The "bipartisan reports" needs clarification, and so does "Putin's own...contrary"--don't know where that is coming from.

More generally, I'm not a fan of "despite" sentence constructions in Wikipedia, because they appear argumentative and editorialized. In highly political articles like this one, separate declarative, referenced statements work better for npov. I'll take another shot at the draft; I'll rewrite it in place, rather than adding new gobs of text to the thread. DonFB (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Please read the AP article I just posted. Andre🚐 16:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions for wording? DonFB (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Don, you asked for support for the evidence that Putin's own statements and the bipartisan reports contradicted Gabbard. Please read the AP article as it contains both. There is no policy against "despite" when a reliable source has fact-checked the statement. The article says, In 2018, Putin directly addressed the question of whether he preferred Trump at a press conference in Helsinki even as he sidestepped a question about whether he directed any of his subordinates to help Trump. “Yes, I did,” Putin said. “Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.” and Russia’s activities during the 2016 election remain some of the most examined events in recent history. The Kremlin’s campaign and the subsequent U.S. government response were the subject of at least five major investigations by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committee; two Justice Department special counsels; and the department’s inspector general. Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion — that Russia embarked on a campaign to interfere in the election through the use of social media and hacked material. Andre🚐 20:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, all so. But you are not addressing how Wikipedia should describe (assuming editors are willing to) Gabbard's allegations and conclusions that she based on the now-declassified docs, regarding the assessments of the Obama intelligence officials pre- and post-2016 election. DonFB (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I would add that the AP report contains a small but revealing comment that subtly speaks to the accusations Gabbard is making: "Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion". "Or accepted the conclusion"--a conclusion that Gabbard claims is a product of the "treasonous conspiracy". I would like you to offer suggested wording that describes Gabbard's allegations.

One line (maybe two) is all we need. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it should be brief. And I still think fundamentally what the sources are telling us is, "Gabbard sought to undermine claims that Putin wanted to boost Trump... Gabbard alleged, without basis and contradicting intelligence reports, a "treasonous conspiracy"..." but I almost want to leave treasonous conspiracy out altogether because it's hyperbolic and has little to do with the actual topic of this article. "Gabbard sought to undermine claims that Putin wanted to boost Trump," is the story here, and then the 2nd part should be the fact that the docs released do not actually offer any evidence of a conspiracy or anything to cast any actual doubt on the bipartisan reports and the consensus of the intelligence community. 01:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

A retired CIA official has rebutted some of Gabbard's lies: [24] Andre🚐 01:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll now abandon my draft (above) and try to do this sentence-by-sentence.

Here is a new proposal for the first sentence of a paragraph (or section) about the matter:

"In July 2025 Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified government documents that she claimed showed a "treasonous conspiracy" by the Obama administration to subvert Donald Trump’s presidency by creating the narrative that he benefitted from Russian interference to help him win the 2016 election."

A supporting reference:

https://www.factcheck.org/2025/07/gabbards-misleading-coup-claim/

The sentence does not include text that editorially undercuts her allegation; the sentence is intended only to allow readers to understand, in very brief form, the accusation she is making. Following text can present appropriate rebuttals, which are legion. Many, perhaps most, RS use "treasonous conspiracy" in their ledes on this topic, so I believe Wikipedia is justified using the phrase in its lede sentence to the topic, no matter what reaction it may elicit. DonFB (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It also leaves out your sources conclusion they are misleading. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't going in the right direction. We should not uncritically amplify the idea that the Obama administration created a narrative, and that is not what the sources say. I'd say something more like: "Gabbard sought to undermine claims that Putin wanted to boost Trump by alleging, contrary to intelligence reports, the existence of a "treasonous conspiracy." Andre🚐 20:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It is correct that sources do not say 'Obama administration created a narrative'. The sources do say that Gabbard alleged that is what the Obama administration did, which is what the proposed sentence says. DonFB (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not right, and not a fair paraphrase of what Gabbard said, and leaves out important context. Gabbard says that the Obama administration "manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment promoting" the narrative, not that they created it out of whole cloth. Again, please try to paraphrase what the source says including a fact check that points out that Gabbard is lying. Or maybe we'd best leave this out of the article altogether until some more time has passed. What we should not and cannot do is simply parrot Gabbard's false allegations. Andre🚐 00:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for waiting until there is a clearer picture. Why are we always in such a hurry? WP:NODEADLINE WP:NOTNEWS O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The text will of course include rebuttal(s). You are mistakenly suggesting I oppose such inclusion. The recent text i suggested is a straightforward description of Gabbard's accusation, which is where this topic begins. DonFB (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Andre🚐 03:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Then write a suggested opening sentence, Put it in quotes, so it will be clear exactly how you think the opening should be phrased. DonFB (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we're going around in circles. I've already stated my view that we probably only need 1 sentence maybe 2 in toto about this. And I want to start with "sought to undermine claims that Putin wanted to boost Trump," that is close to all I think we need to say. We do not need to say that Gabbard alleged everything she alleged verbatim -- and certainly not a paraphrase that goes beyond her wording -- but simply a 1-2 sentence summary of what the reliable sources wrote about what Gabbard said. Andre🚐 05:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I also think we're going in circles. You can help break out of it by writing a complete grammatically correct sentence that shows what you think Wikipedia should say about this. You've offered fragmentary quotes, but a full sentence is what's needed. I probably think more needs to be said about this than you, but it's hard to make progress if you won't offer actual suggested complete text, as I have done multiple times in an effort to reach common ground. DonFB (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I already told you the sentence was, "Gabbard sought to undermine claims that Putin wanted to boost Trump, despite the bipartisan reports and Putin's own statements to the contrary," you asked for references for the latter portion, and the references have already been provided. If you still think it's fine to write a bunch of baloney about Obama and then treat that as equally valid to the fact checks I do not think we need to add anything at all to the article. Andre🚐 05:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, after all this sturm und drang, I looked over the article to see where your tidbit might go, and had my memory refreshed that text on the topic currently exists in the hoax section. It needs better referencing and fails to offer any information what the "conspiracy" is about, so I will direct my attention to improving what's there. DonFB (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Patel and Ratcliffe try to bolster claims that FBI and CIA conspired against Trump.

Some of this report is relevant for this article.

Now we are starting to get RS coverage of attempts to cover-up and sane wash Trump. Here's a story from NBC News:

• Patel and Ratcliffe try to bolster claims that FBI and CIA conspired against Trump. "The release of formerly classified documents this week shows how Trump appointees are using their power to try to prop up his allegations about both agencies." (archive link)

I already had the original CIA release and links to myriad unreliable sources' coverage of it, but now we can start to cover it here at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2025

change - In response to the investigations, Trump, Republican Party leaders, and right-wing conservatives promoted and endorsed false and debunked conspiracy theory counter-narratives in an effort to discredit the allegations and findings of the investigations, frequently referring to them as the "Russia hoax"[13] or "Russian collusion hoax".[14][Note 1]

to - In response to the investigations, Trump, Republican Party leaders, and right-wing conservatives discredit the allegations and findings of the investigations, frequently referring to them as the "Russia hoax"[13] or "Russian collusion hoax".[14][Note 1] 2600:8807:1C00:CF0:C4AA:7F02:3930:6BC2 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

This needs discussion, at best, before enacting, so no. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Series of articles by Andrew C. McCarthy

The articles are about the false "Russiagate" claims and the CIA report Ratcliffe is touting — "Tradecraft Review of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Election Interference."

The conservative Andrew C. McCarthy gets a lot wrong, but he does have a point that Ratcliffe's and the Trump CIA's effort to prosecute Brennan and Comey is pointless and baseless.

1. Russiagate Revisited: Trump CIA Chief Refers Brennan and Comey for Criminal Investigation, July 13, 2025

https://archive.ph/smwNo 14 Jul 2025 00:34:44 UTC

2. Russiagate Revisited: The Centrality of John Brennan, July 14, 2025

https://archive.ph/TWuzL 14 Jul 2025 11:41:59 UTC

3. Russiagate Revisited: An Unforced Error that Highlights Russia’s Interference in the 2016 Election, July 15, 2025

https://archive.ph/mPTRa 15 Jul 2025 10:33:06 UTC

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you want us to say, as we canot say "CIA's effort to prosecute Brennan and Comey is pointless and baseless.". Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Well,.... I'm not even sure we should use the National Review in this case, as the articles contain so much that is misleading. (Sometimes it's a usable source with right-wing perspectives.) The articles are still informative for editors and may improve our understanding of some background issues, including understanding the false ideas conservatives carry around in their heads.

They also show that even on the right-wing, there are some fairly level-headed conservatives who maintain a threadlike connection to reality. I think he's right about this latest ploy and that it will just fall apart. It's a lot of posturing and hype that will fool the masses, just like the constant repetition of "stolen election" lies and "Russiagate is a hoax" lies fool the masses. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

We could cite him and his cautionary message. Attributed quotes might work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

When I added the paragraph about the Ratcliffe "CIA Note", I noticed there were already published opinion pieces criticizing the review, including the DiResta piece itself. It is not unreasonable to add information to this article to that effect. It's not rocket science. Two sentences, maybe three, can explain that political commentators have analyzed and criticized the review. The Atlantic and the Bulwark have weighed in, and now McCarthy. Other conservative commentators have also given their opinions, but probably none of that is publishable in Wikipedia, because all those sources are quarantined in RSP. What we don't need, I will emphasize, is another dump of paragraphs of quotations from the pundits; a brief summary suffices. This article, however, is not the place for an extended description of the effort to prosecute Brennan and Comey, because that branch of the narrative strays well outside this article's focus on Russian interference. Detailed information about the criminal referral should go in one of the zillions of other articles about Trump or a Trump-adjacent topic. DonFB (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)