Jump to content

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 202: Line 202:


{{closed rfc bottom}}
{{closed rfc bottom}}

== Proof of "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"? ==

Is there any proof at all of the alleged "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"? ---[[User:Dagme|Dagme]] ([[User talk:Dagme|talk]]) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:55, 27 December 2017

McCabe???

How does this page not mention Andrew McCabe's vital role in the Russia investigation? --FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category 'Foreign intervention'

A recent edit [1] removed the category 'Foreign intervention' that this article is a part of. The edit summary was, "This is a great-great grandfather category, so it's already implicitly included by being categorized in a decendant cat. See WP:SUBCAT."

Looking at the category Foreign intervention, we see that there are no subcategories that this article fits in. Thus the claim of the above edit summary is false and the category 'Foreign intervention' should be restored. [Note added Dec 13, 2017: There is now a subcategory Foreign electoral intervention.] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still makes no sense, ipso facto sempervivum excelsior. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the wikilink Foreign intervention in my above message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific and explain your problem in understanding what I wrote? You might also explain what you mean by "ipso facto sempervivum excelsior" with regard to the current issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning is clear, ipso facto. Feel free to disregard. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Now what about my question: Could you be more specific and explain your problem in understanding what I wrote? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you and MrX concerned that Humanengr would use the presence of the category to try to do something that hurts the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was mistaken about it being a parent category (although I was sure I checked it). In any case, I don't believe it's an appropriate category. I'm not aware that the majority of sources have described Russia's interference as "foreign intervention". If you can get consensus from other editors, I won't object to it being restored.- MrX 19:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX, Ref 2 in Foreign electoral intervention labels such as "electoral intervention". A quote from there:

An electoral intervention is defined as a situation in which one or more sovereign countries intentionally undertakes specific actions to influence an upcoming election in another sovereign country in an overt or covert manner that they believe will favor or hurt one of the sides contesting that election and which incurs, or may incur, significant costs to the intervener(s) or the intervened country.

I am not aware of any WP:RS that object to such designation. Make sense? Humanengr (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't make sense. That's not a reference for this article's subject. This entire discussion is a colossal waste of time. Please don't ping me again.- MrX 22:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of specific news articles re this article's subject:
WaPo: various mentions, including "John Adams was no more pleased than Hillary Clinton is now with this foreign electoral intervention."
Newsweek: "Their investigation into 2016 is not yet complete, and open issues include the question of Trump campaign or other American assistance to the Russian electoral intervention."
The Hill: "To complicate attribution of Russian electoral intervention …"
Boston Globe: "there is little evidence that Trump and his Republican cohort are all that bothered by Moscow’s electoral intervention."
WSJ: "51% of respondents said they believed Russia intervened".
Forbes: "Special Counsel Mueller has been given a broad charge and no deadline -- a formula for trouble. He is supposed to “investigate Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election.”
Humanengr (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416: I can understand some rationale behind placing this in the "Foreign intervention" category. However, if you look at the pages in that category, every one is about a military intervention. Clearly whatever may have occurred in this case falls short of that. Despite a few hyperbolic statements about "act of war," etc., no Russian troops have yet arrived. If there was a subcat called "Foreign electoral intervention," that would be more appropriate. @MrX: I'm not seeing some ulterior motive in the addition of the cat (e.g. shift of WP:SCOPE), though I don't think the cat is warranted. -Darouet (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're almost correct about the pages in the category Foreign intervention. One of them, Foreign electoral intervention, isn't about military intervention and even includes reference to our article and discussion of the subject of our article [2]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob K31416: I did see that, and thought about including a mention of it in my comment. But I think that overall the point holds: that category, excepting the page you've linked, refers to (for now) a very different kind of intervention. From a hypothetical perspective, if the category were to include foreign electoral "interventions" of various kinds, there could be many hundreds of very different entries, and their number could increase by a dozen each year. In that context I feel like there are more drawbacks than there are benefits to adding the category. -Darouet (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like this suggestion is going anywhere, so I'll withdraw it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet, thx for the kind words. The net effect at this point is for ‘Russian interference in the 2016 United States election’ to be seen as a one-of-a-kind event. Is that the desired result? Humanengr (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do think your suggested category would suffice. But I’m not clear on why having "many hundreds of very different entries” is problematic. Having such would seem to allow/promote sub-categorization and coherence across WP and be informative for the audience. [Added:] As WP now stands, if we go with the more focused category of 'Foreign electoral intervention', the number of included pages would be rather small, starting with the Foreign electoral intervention article and some of the dozen or so main articles referenced there. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing at this point would be to remove some of the long list of categories already in the article. Consider our readers and how categories are used by readers and editors. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the "Categories: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections | Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 | Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016" box at the bottom. Humanengr (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories: Wikipedia controversial topicsWikipedia articles that use American EnglishB-Class Computer Security articlesB-Class Computer Security articles of High-importanceHigh-importance Computer Security articlesB-Class Computing articlesUnknown-importance Computing articlesAll Computing articlesAll Computer Security articlesC-Class Crime-related articlesTop-importance Crime-related articlesWikiProject Crime articlesB-Class Donald Trump articlesHigh-importance Donald Trump articlesWikiProject Donald Trump articlesB-Class Elections and Referendums articlesWikiProject Elections and Referendums articlesB-Class Espionage articlesTop-importance Espionage articlesB-Class Hillary Clinton articlesHigh-importance Hillary Clinton articlesWikiProject Hillary Clinton articlesB-Class International relations articlesMid-importance International relations articlesWikiProject International relations articlesB-Class Internet articlesLow-importance Internet articlesWikiProject Internet articlesB-Class Journalism articlesLow-importance Journalism articlesWikiProject Journalism articlesStart-Class intelligence articlesIntelligence task force articlesStart-Class military science, technology, and theory articlesMilitary science, technology, and theory task force articlesStart-Class military history articlesB-Class politics articlesUnknown-importance politics articlesB-Class American politics articlesHigh-importance American politics articlesAmerican politics task force articlesWikiProject Politics articlesB-Class Russia articlesRussia articles with incomplete B-Class checklistsRussia articles needing attention to referencing and citationRussia articles needing attention to coverage and accuracyRussia articles needing attention to structureRussia articles needing attention to grammarRussia articles needing attention to supporting materialsMid-importance Russia articlesWikiProject Russia articles with no associated task forceMid-importance B-Class Russia articlesWikiProject Russia articlesB-Class United States articlesB-Class United States articles of High-importanceHigh-importance United States articlesB-Class United States Government articlesTop-importance United States Government articlesWikiProject United States Government articlesB-Class United States presidential elections articlesHigh-importance United States presidential elections articlesWikiProject United States presidential elections articlesWikiProject United States articlesWikipedia pages referenced by the pressWikipedia requests for comment


SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone make sense of SPECIFICO's last two posts for me? The subject at-issue is not categories on the talk page but on the article page.Humanengr (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The intention here seems to be to insinuate that hijacking foreign elections is something everyone does all the time, and therefore what Russia did is totally okay and not a major international incident at all. That might or might not be a valid personal opinion, but categories shouldn't be used to insinuate something into an article that sources don't allow to be stated explicitly. By the way, you can't just casually pivot from "no proof, so it probably didn't happen" arguments to a "this is normal, everyone does it, so it's not a big deal" arguments while pretending that you did not just create a huge internal self-contradiction. At least, not without expending a lot of other editors' good faith assumption. Geogene (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say anything to the effect of
  1. “hijacking foreign elections is something everyone does all the time”
  2. “what Russia did is [a)] totally okay and [b)] not a major international incident at all” [under the assumption they did what they are accused of]
  3. "this is normal”
  4. “everyone does it”
  5. “so it's not a big deal"
Or skip that and just answer questions that will advance the discussion:
  1. Is this the only instance of foreign election intervention?
  2. What do you mean by ‘major’?
Humanengr (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Geogene, It might help in discussion below if you could answer the last question above. TIA, Humanengr (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re your "hijacking foreign elections is something everyone does all the time": Per Foreign electoral intervention: "the United States and Russia (along with the former Soviet Union) 'intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 — an average of once in every nine competitive elections'." (citing this, this, and this). From the second of those cites: "the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36."
So, those two 'great powers' (from the title of the first cite) play a substantive role. Humanengr (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanengr and Geogene: There are only 3 categories appended to the article at present and that probably isn't enough. However I agree with Geogene that a "Foreign Intervention" cat should not be added in order to demonstrate that electoral intervention is common. Considering all the other major issues with this article, adding a category to make a roundabout point is not useful to anyone. -Darouet (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify: What do you mean by ‘common’? In your view, is this event “one-of-a-kind” or “common” or ?? Humanengr (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign interference in elections is common: it happens all the time. But this affair (the German article is titled "2016 Hacking affair between Russia and the United States") is certainly unprecedented. Humanengr I don't think this discussion will be productive. -Darouet (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon — I don't understand the reference to the German article. (I don't see it on the talk or article pages.) Humanengr (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that to my knowledge, in U.S. history, there has never been a political event like that described by this article. -Darouet (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sure hope you meant to say "never previously". SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I did mean "never previously," though perhaps you and I interpret the word "political event" differently. Let's just say that always have and still do hold with those crazy POV FRINGE UNDUE nutbags at the BBC [3]: "Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a former FBI director, is investigating alleged Russian interference in the US election to help elect Mr Trump." -Darouet (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with "political event" it has to do with, if you deny the contents of the article you gots bigger problems than some category down under. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's your attitude to the BBC line I quoted? -Darouet (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abject indifference. Call them up and ask them if they doubt the Russians interference. Put your mind at ease. Meanwhile, I'll check in with NASA about the moon landing. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet, thanks — your “in U.S. history” is illuminative. I am not debating that point. But the issue is broader than 'U.S. as target' as you and Bob discussed above re Foreign electoral intervention. The topic of 'Russian electoral intervention in the U.S.’ is not a one-of-a-kind. It seems, by that earlier discussion, you agree with that. My point in this post is to return focus to that, so we can have that as solid foundation and move forward. Ok? Humanengr (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you elaborate on ‘drawbacks’ you mentioned above? TIA, Humanengr (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a related side remark, I created Category:Foreign electoral intervention as a subcategory of Category:Foreign intervention. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" …

[RfC template removed per suggestion of JFG]

Is "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" the only instance of one nation interfering in another nation's election? If not, what would be a helpful label for such activities — foreign electoral intervention/interference/influence, … ? All answers welcome. Humanengr (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to the above Talk section discussing categories for this article. I think DN's question below is along those lines. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What effect would this categorization have on the article? What are the pros and cons? DN (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx, DN. Good question. My starting point is questioning the propriety and helpfulness of invoking the eponymous category. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Further fodder: Having 'Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections' as a category for an article of that name unquestionably yields the impression it is one-of-a-kind. (Hence my questions above to others, heretofore unanswered.) In my view that is grossly misleading and intended to remove from consideration other comparable actions worldwide. The onus here is on those who want to prevent such consideration. Does that help? Humanengr (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Humanengr thinks this is another way to normalize and legitimize Russia's behavior without having to find sources to support their position. They're WP:NOTHERE, and there are WP:EXHAUST issues here as well. Geogene (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob tried to add that category without consensus. [4] I consider that edit warring, since it has been under discussion for days and I don't see any evidence of consensus. I won't hesitate to request sanctions the next time you do that. Reminder: in a dispute, the burden is on you to get consensus for disputed text before adding it. Geogene (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute was about Category:Foreign intervention. I added Category:Foreign electoral intervention, which seems to be a good category for this article. When I added it, I thought that it might be reverted for whatever reason, and if so I wouldn't contest it. I thought it was worth a try but I wasn't interested in a long debate about it.
I also note that you removed a link to the article Foreign electoral intervention from the See also section [5]. Note that this link in the See also section that you removed had been accepted by other editors for six days after I added it on Dec 9 [6]. I'm not interested in getting into a debate on that either, so I won't pursue it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It looks like you made two reverts [7][8] in less than a day. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you don't understand the edit warring policy, Bob. Geogene (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind the notice at the top of this page, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." It would be helpful to me and possibly others if you showed the excerpt from policy that you think exempts your reverts. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found at WP:3rr the following, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." So in the case currently being considered, the two consecutive reverts count as one and the order that an editor make no more than one revert in 24 hours, is not violated. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because its stated purpose is a nationalistic POV-push. Diffs [9], [10]. There may or may not be policy-based rationales that could be made for it, but given the intent, it's not my responsibility to go find them. Geogene (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think motivations really matter when it comes to a good edit. If the edit is good, but is being done for the explicit purposes of a blatantly obvious POV shift, then I'd say that it stands to reason that the article had a not-so-obvious POV slant leaning the other way to begin with. I mean, if you're opposing a good edit because it's an admitted POV push, doesn't that then make your opposition a POV counter-push? So in the end, you're trying to keep good changes out of the article due to your own POV...
Listen, I agree with you that Bob seems to have a marked POV. We've agreed on most subjects of discussion on this page and several other AmPol pages where we've participated together. You must know by now that I'm an admitted left-wing editor trying my damnedest to be neutral. So please take my advice when I say that if the only reason you're opposing this is because of the obvious or admitted intentions of the editor intent on making the change, then it's time to step back and let it happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Geogene, I don't think it would be productive for anyone to get into a discussion with you about what you think is in another editor's mind. In any case, those diffs in your message weren't about categories or the specific Category:Foreign electoral intervention that the above editor was commenting on. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MPants at work, Same comment for you, I don't think it would be productive for anyone to get into a discussion with you about what you think is in another editor's mind. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's what Jimbo's talk page is for, right Bob? [11]. [12]. [13] Geogene (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think that we should not consider our personal beliefs about the topic of a controversial article when editing. Editors should simply edit according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, here's a key guideline: WP:TE. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MPants, a key thing is that you've presented a valid justification for the content. Up to this point a number of editors have appeared to be reticent to offer support, and I didn't want argument to exhaustion to be an end run around apparent consensus. But I'm also aware of an underlying absurdity in this instance, and will consider what you're saying here. Geogene (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Geogene: Please do. And thank you for being so willing to consider what other editors are saying as they disagree with you. It's a truly rare trait, especially in this subject.
@Bob K31416: Way to lower the bar, there. Keep it up and we'll be calling each other "faggots" in no time. Seriously; if all you have to say are complaints about other editors, then shut the fuck up. Same goes for SPECIFICO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Mpants. @Geogene, thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MPants is probably right. I think the justification originally given is a bad one, but if not for that it wouldn't be controversial. If it went to an RfC,it would pass. So I don't object. Geogene (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, Geogene. Iiuc, you concur it is noncontroversial (in line w Mpants above) to include this article in the category ‘Foreign electoral intervention’. So would an RfC to add ‘Foreign electoral intervention’ in the bottom nav box and/or ‘See also’ (the latter b/c the former does not appear on mobile) be the appropriate route at this point? Humanengr (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

"In April 2017, Reuters cited several U.S. officials as saying that the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISI)"

Should be:

"In April 2017, Reuters cited several U.S. officials as saying that the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS)"

Michael0658 (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC to add the category ‘Foreign electoral intervention’ to the bottom navbox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing b/c of clear consensus in support of the proposal. Humanengr (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the bottom navbox* include the category ‘Foreign electoral intervention’?

(* ‘bottom navbox’ refers to the box shown at bottom of page on desktop EN that currently includes “Categories: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections | Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 | Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016”)

Humanengr (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
See Foreign electoral intervention. Does that help? Humanengr (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

@Humanengr: I don't think I understand this proposal. You seem to be asking if a link to Category:Foreign electoral intervention should be added to the template:United States presidential election, 2016. Is that actually your intention?- MrX 12:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the box below that; clarification added. Humanengr (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you just want to categorize the article under Category:Foreign electoral intervention ? Is that actually controversial? I wouldn't oppose it if you just WP:BOLDLY added it.- MrX 15:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Once again I find myself asking? Why is this a problem? The initial opposition to it has vanished, thanks to the thoughtful consideration of Geogene. I don't see any need for an RfC, just add the cat. Opposing !votes with rationales like "Fussy vague and pointless. No value for our readers." are 100% bullshit and should carry no weight in discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right. The category is stupid, because "foreign" is a relative term, so it would be better worded "external" or something, but there's no need for an RfC. Nobody cares about this and as I said above, it's pointless and uninformative. Pointless RfC's are a huge time sump. Nobody's going to object if OP just adds this cat to the bag. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, folks; closing b/c of consensus. Humanengr (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proof of "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"?

Is there any proof at all of the alleged "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"? ---Dagme (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&oldid=817314727"