Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Shouldn't this be retitled "Conspiracy Theories about Russian Interference in the 2016 Election"?

Given that there's literally nothing other than hearsay by obviously biased parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35679-22 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text about Tulsi Gabbard allegations

The following text is agreed upon--with one exception--by editors DonFB and AndreJustAndre:

In July 2025, Trump administration Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard alleged that documents she recently declassified supported her accusation of a "treasonous conspiracy" by the Obama administration to manufacture a false intelligence assessment and partner with media to promote a narrative that Russian election interference was carried out to help Trump win in 2016. This accusation was quickly rejected by intelligence officials, impartial bipartisan experts, members of the Democratic party, pundits and columnists, who all pointed out that multiple government investigations concluded that Russian agents did, in fact, try to help Trump win, as the bipartisan intelligence consensus had concluded, and that Gabbard had not revealed any damning new information that exposed a conspiracy. Trump cheered Gabbard's accusations.

The point of disagreement is whether to include the word "treasonous". The text would go in the section: "Trump's 'Russiagate hoax' claims", currently 19.4.2 in the table of contents. References to be used are shown below. This is not a formal RFC, but comments from editors are invited.

References

https://apnews.com/article/gabbard-russia-2016-steele-dossier-0452e1079506daa86d75fa0a2f22fc60 https://www.factcheck.org/2025/07/gabbards-misleading-coup-claim/

DonFB (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Treasonous conspiracy" are DNI Gabbard's specific words, and as such they should remain in quotes. If the word "treasonous" is to be removed, then "conspiracy" does not need to be in quotes. So either "treasonous conspiracy" or conspiracy. Personally I prefer leaving in the full phrase in quotes, and maybe putting in a reference note as to how treason is defined in the Constitution (i.e. "levying war against the U.S. or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort"[1]) - into which the "treasonous conspiracy" allegations do not seem to fit. Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of leaving out treasonous, and I would worry about improper WP:SYNTH by linking it to the constitutional definition of treason, unless a secondary source does that. But I agree with the underlying point that there was no actual accusation of a substantive charge of treason that I can determine, which is partly why I think it should be omitted. It is just rhetorical color. It happens to be a WP:BLPCRIME as well and not all Obama admin figures are WP:PUBLICFIGUREs. Andre🚐 20:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's a very well-reasoned way to cut that Gordian knot. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also favor omitting "treasonous" and also not putting what's left (conspiracy) in quotes. Here, "treasonous" seems to be a meaningless intensifier, and while quoting her exact words would be accurate, it's not our job to provide a soapbox for loaded language. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Meaningless intensifier" is precisely what it is. Andre🚐 03:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was reported to be a "treasonous conspiracy" or a “treasonous” plot carried out by the Obama administration and his staff to promote a narrative that Russian election interference was carried out to help Trump win in 2016. I favor documenting what was reported in the released declassified documents and stated by Tulsi Gabbard. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, and most important, the two-word quoted phrase was published by virtually all major reliable mainstream journalism organizations used as sources by this encyclopedia. I don't think anyone is trying to argue the sourcing is insufficient or unreliable. That should be the end of the story, but unfortunately, it's not.

So, now, let me deal with the objections. Mr swordfish wrote that "it's not our job to provide a soapbox for loaded language." Stated that way, I can almost agree. I think a more useful rubric, which I give unqualified support, would be: "it's not our intention to provide a soapbox for loaded language." This means we should not deliberately seek out such language in some obscure corner of politics or culture and publicize it. Our "job", however, means that we do, in fact, publicize loaded language when, without our seeking it, a prominent elected or appointed public office holder uses it in connection with their official duties, and that usage receives widespread repeated coverage in multiple reliable sources. This would not be the first case in which Wikipedia provided a soapbox for loaded language by a public official. For example, Wikipedia served as a soapbox--or platform, if you prefer--for a statement by the President of the United States, reliably sourced and quoted in multiple articles on this site, that the press (or the "media") is "the enemy of the people". Should Wikipedia serve as a soapbox, in multiple articles, for such loaded language? Wikipedia described the same president as suggesting that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley should be executed for treason, and also quoted Republican representative Paul Gosar saying that in a better society, "sodomy-promoting General Milley would be hung". For his part, Milley is quoted by the Wikipedia article about him as saying the president who suggested his execution is "fascist to the core". Should Wikipedia give a soapbox to such instances of loaded language? Wikipedia also described a presidential comment "suggesting that television host Joe Scarborough was involved in the 2001 death of a staffer Lori Klausutis". Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to provide a soapbox for this loaded language?

AndreJustAndre is worried about BLPCRIME and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. BLPCRIME warns about using material "For individuals who are not public figures" that suggests they committed or are accused of committing a crime. In the proposed text above, Obama is the only name implicated in the accusation. Obama is a public figure. The idea that other, still unnamed, private figures might someday be ensnared stretches both BLPCRIME and WP:PUBLICFIGURE beyond the breaking point. The BLP PublicFigure policy text says: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Permit me to add my not-yet-consensus corollary: even if editors dislike mention of it. BLP, be reminded, is deeply concerned with unsourced or poorly sourced material. The word "unsourced" appears ten times in the BLP policy (and a few more in references). The sourcing for "treasonous conspiracy" is beyond reproach, and so an argument to use BLP to sanitize Wikipedia of that phrase in the context of this article is a misapplication of that policy. See also NOTCENSORED.

Andre added this critique: "there was no actual accusation of a substantive charge of treason that I can determine". "That I can determine." That phrase--and that thinking--is antithetical to how Wikipedia works. We, as editors, don't decide what Wikipedia should publish based upon our personal "determination" about the truthfulness of a quotation by and about public persons published by a dozen or more reliable sources. Rather, in accord with the principles of this website, we describe and summarize what the reliable sources have reported and exclude our personal "determination" about the substance from the process. And if, as in this case, those same reliable sources also report the accusation being roundly and vigorously refuted by other officials and pundits, we describe that refutation and give it due weight. We inform our readers; we don't serve them redacted text based on some personal "determination" of the propriety of reliably sourced and widely reported public speech, or on an excessively strained interpretation of biography policy.

I expect the usual "other stuff exists" counter-argument. Before unlimbering it, consider that Wikipedia's editing principles--like those I've described and illustrated--apply across this website to all of its articles. DonFB (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DonFB. BLPCRIME does not apply. We are quoting this official’s florid language because it is noteworthy, as determined by the weight of RSs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obama is not the only figure implicated in the accusation. Otherwise, how is it a conspiracy? Who was he conspiring with? Andre🚐 07:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see this as a serious argument. Only one person—a public figure—was named as implicated in the text we collaborated on, shown above. DonFB (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation is a conspiracy involving intelligence gathering, reporting and methods in the Obama administration. Unless you think Obama personally gathers and analyzes intelligence, it is largely about his staff and appointees and members of independent agencies such as the CIA. The mention of Obama as an individual is just a little more rhetorical color. That is why ex-CIA agents who led the intelligence assessment are responding to the accusation along with figures like Clapper. Some of them are public figures, some aren't. For those who are not, BLPCRIME applies. Regardless, I do not know what policy or guideline or principle says that we must quote verbatim whenever a public official says something. It adds nothing useful to the article about Russian interference in 2016 to use the term "treasonous" unless you can explain how that is pertinent or what it tells us. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Andre🚐 20:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our text names one public figure and no private ones, so invoking Blpcrime is grasping at straws; it's a non-issue. "What it tells us"—the full phrase—is the seriousness of the allegation by a high-ranking government official. Dismissing the statement as "whenever a public official says something" looks like an Orwellian effort to shove the extensively and reliably reported matter into the memory hole—a practice that may get you a promotion in the ministry of truth, but deplorable for Wikipedia. DonFB (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite an assertion. There is no censorship and nothing Orwellian in omitting the term "treasonous." It is a meaningless intensifier. It is a question as to whether the Wikipedia article on Russian interference should say that Gabbard alleged a treasonous conspiracy or alleged a conspiracy. We are not obliged to print everything, merely the things that would help the reader understand the Russian interference in 2016 and the associated encyclopedic aspects. More detail could be needed on Tulsi Gabbard's own article perhaps. Or another article that deals more with something relating to her statements and actions, as I understand it she's been adding to her actions, for example slashing the ODNI by 50% and revoking 37 security clearances. Those are much more relevant and interesting than what adjective she chooses to use to describe her conspiracy theory. Andre🚐 23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Treasonous" is "meaningless"? Explain your thinking that all major reliable sources were mistaken in reporting the full phrase and that Wikipedia, opposing its own sources, is correct in excluding the word. A hint: the word is not meaningless DonFB (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has a meaning, but that meaning isn't apparently in use, or can you substantiate how it would apply? Wikipedia is not a news source, and most likely when academic and journal sources weigh in on this, they will not find the treason interesting. Try to apply the WP:10YEARSTEST and understand the encyclopedic impact of this. Andre🚐 01:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation with you is beginning to resemble talking with a couple of U.S. presidents. One wanted to debate the definition of "is". Another told people, "What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening". People understand the plain meaning of "treasonous"; if you don't, that's a problem for you (but also, now, unfortunately, a problem for Wikipedia). You opined that "most likely when academic and journal sources weigh in on this, they will not find the treason interesting". Try not to look in CRYSTAL (a policy, in contrast to 10Years, an essay). I'm still waiting for you to explain why all the sources we use were mistaken to publish the full phrase, and Wikipedia is correct to exclude half of it. DonFB (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "just a problem for them", and if the focus of your criticism is on editors rather than their arguments, that's unlikely to build a consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are news sources. Their goal is not necessarily oriented around BLP, NPOV, VNOT, WP:NOTNEWS, and stuff like that. They want to capture an eyeball. We do not mindlessly publish every clickbait headline. As far as the definition of treason, it has a constitutional legal definition, and it has a common definition. However none of that was addressed by Gabbard, again, that I can tell. Gabbard did not articulate a claim that meets the legal definition, which makes her use of the word primarily rhetorical. The word itself adds little to the encyclopedic substance of the article on Russian election interference and is more suited for a detailed biography of Gabbard herself, where her specific rhetoric might be more relevant. While the word "treasonous" was reported by reliable sources, the overall consensus of those sources, as well as the broader political and journalistic response, was a swift and broad rejection of the claim. by removing the word "treasonous" and just stating that she alleged a "conspiracy," the text focuses on the substantive claim itself, which is what the article is about, rather than a potentially fleeting and inflammatory adjective. This makes the article more encyclopedic and less like a verbatim news report. Andre🚐 03:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are news sources that Wikipedia depends on for coverage of both contemporary and past events. Saying, "We do not mindlessly publish every clickbait headline" profoundly misrepresents the integrity of the sources that we use. The NYT is not Taboola. Reuters is not BuzzFeed. Your personal analysis of the accuracy of Gabbard's allegation is irrelevant. We use reliable sources, not our own opinions and determinations, to inform readers about the meaning of what people say and do.

The sources did, in fact, report swift refutations of the allegations, as our proposed text makes clear. But you said: "by removing the word 'treasonous' and just stating that she alleged a 'conspiracy,' the text focuses on the substantive claim itself". Once again, you are substituting your personal evaluation of public speech in place of reliably sourced information about the nature of the allegation and the meaning of the words themselves. In doing so, you are acting outside the boundaries of Wikipedia policy. Gabbard said what she said. It was universally reported by the mainstream reliable sources we use. To repeat the excerpt I quoted from BLP: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article...."

You also said that removal of a single word would make the article "more encyclopedic and less like a verbatim news report". I submit that removal of one word will not change the tone or style of this article, 142k of prose, in the manner you suggest.

I can support the addition of information goes into greater depth about the allegations and the language in the main Gabbard article, or others adjacent. But that is not a reason to exclude a meaningful word, which says something about the speaker, from this article.

You are free IRL to personally criticize the language she used, and, perhaps, to regard such comments as damaging to the political process and U.S. democracy itself. But in Wikipedia you are not free to substitute your own analysis in place of reliable sourcing that describes the meaning and impact of these, or any, statements and events. DonFB (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEADLINE isn't restricted to Buzzfeed (which ended up becoming a pretty good news source actually at one point) and the NYT absolutely does publish a headline that can be sensational and attention-grabbing all the time. And articles. My analysis never entered into it because the sources all agree that Gabbard is making shit up. That is a given. As pertaining to what we include in the article, I am not substituting my own opinion, I am exercising the editorial judgment. It is an opinion but on the encyclopedic value of the word and not the truth value (VNOT truth, but VNOT guaranteed). What you quote regarding belonging an in article does not mean it belongs in every article or THIS article, as this article is not a BLP and I certainly think Gabbard's treason claim does not belong in Obama's article (nor is it). It is not an improper exercise of opinion to exercise editorial judgment. WP:IMPARTIAL: inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. The sources quote her but WP:WEIGHT does not demand that this particular article must quote her in the exact way that she is quoted in the coverage of this event unless that quote is used in many sources about this topic. There should be very little weight on her at all, and we should cut anything excessive or gratuitous. The quote adds nothing, and I want to know why you think it is so valuable. You seem to think that there is still the possibility that she is correct, despite all RS saying otherwise, that seems to be the only way that this will be a noteworthy aspect of the overall topic which is Russian interference in 16 and not Tulsi. It is an insignificant thing. If you believe that this one word makes no difference why are you so adamant it must be included? Andre🚐 06:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be included because sourcing is airtight and it is a matter of historical record, described as "unprecedented" by at least one source (NBC). I am adamant because I disapprove of manipulative editing in the face of unassailable sourcing. It is manipulative to remove a universally reported word that carries exceptional weight (note: weight and truth are not the same thing). You said, "the sources all agree that Gabbard is making shit up". Right, and so therefore, you seem to believe, Wikipedia should pretend she never said it and sweep the matter under the rug, rather than informing readers, as did dozens of sources, both reliable and quarantined, of her statement and the words she used. This is memory hole territory.
I believe one word makes no difference in whether the article does or does not sound like a verbatim news report. But that one word, which carries such heavy freight and is of undisputed attribution, of course should be included to inform readers about the gravity attached to the allegation by the DNI.
To say "The quote adds nothing" is to say the whole reliably-sourced matter of the DNI allegation should go unmentioned in a section of the article that specifically deals with allegations of "hoax".
I am curious to know on what basis you said: "You seem to think that there is still the possibility that she is correct". Your statement appears to assume that belief in the allegation is a necessary, or perhaps the only condition, in which an editor would want the words included. Are you confusing my insistence on verifiable historical accuracy about a highly controversial public statement with a point of view about that statement? DonFB (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is airtight and it is part of the historical record that she used that word, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia's article on this needs to quote that part of her statement. The question is whether that part of her statement is relevant to the article or whether we are just repeating it because the news quoted her saying that recently and close to the beginning of their articles, or because you think there is a real criminal charge being made of treason and that makes it important because of how serious that is. It is indeed a surprising thing to say and that makes it potentially an important detail about Gabbard. But on this article, what is the difference between whether she did or not allege treason? Does it change the meaning of what she said as it pertains to this article? when you say the word carries exceptional weight, do you mean that it has a great impact to this topic, to readers, or do you mean that a majority of articles about the Russian interference say it? When you say gravity do you mean gravity in the sense of being meaningful and serious, or do you mean that it is a major point in the outline of representing this topic? Because I'd say it is not that serious, and more clownish, and not a big part of the topic, and not so massively a part of the material representing this that it absolutely must be included. Let me ask you this. When Clapper, Bolton, the CIA lady, etc. all go out to debunk this, do they say, "OBAMA WAS NOT TREASONOUS!" Or do they ignore it because it is more silly and it does not need to be responded to, since it lacks any kind of actual depth at all.
The reason I say you seem to think there is a possibility she is correct is because you are treating it as an allegation and one that we should suspend judgment on by referring to it as a serious allegation. It's not really a serious allegation anymore when every RS says it's BS. The fact that person X said Y crazy thing about topic Z is only merited for inclusion if that fact is well-sourced AND encyclopedic AND relevant. Nobody doubts that it is well-sourced. we will have SOMETHING about this general press conference in the article. Yes, many of the sources that reported on Gabbard during this particular news cycle, saw fit to include treasonou. Many articles also reported that she used the terms "egregious weaponization and politicization," "years-long coup," "subverting the will of the people," "egregious abuse of power and blatant rejection of our Constitution threatens the very foundation and integrity of our democratic republic." Why are you not arguing to include those also? Almost as many sources quoted some of those phrases too. Just because most sources quote her does not mean we need to quote the same parts. Andre🚐 08:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you recommending that one of these phrases be used instead of treasonous conspiracy:
"egregious weaponization and politicization," "years-long coup," "subverting the will of the people," "egregious abuse of power and blatant rejection of our Constitution"? I don't object to any of them, but I think they all tend to describe consequences to the political system, rather than pinpointing the alleged action (treasonous conspiracy) that supposedly produced the "hoax". So, in that sense, treasonous conspiracy is a more direct (and certainly less wordy) description of what Gabbard claims caused the alleged hoax than those other phrases.
Yes, of course we should "suspend judgment on" on the allegation. Not sure how many times I need to tell you that it's not up to Wikipedia editors to pass judgement on the substance of controversies. We describe and summarize what reliable sources report about contending claims and findings, apply due weight, and let readers do the judging as they see fit. I regard your attempt to exclude the unimpeachably-sourced phrase as your effort to determine article text based on your desire to do what you criticize me for not doing: passing judgement. Inclusion of the phrase conforms to Wikipedia policy; passing judgement on the controversy to exclude it violates policy. DonFB (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Don, I am not. I think all of those phrases should be left out. And no, we do not suspend judgment on an allegation that all sources have made clear is BS. Andre🚐 18:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against the sources. I argue against the unjustifiable dismembering of a key quotation, reported by all the reliable sources that you're referring to. I will prepare an RFC. DonFB (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that requires quotes to be verbatim and in fact, paraphrasing and summarizing is preferred. But sure RFC then Andre🚐 18:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is reported should be included, just an opinion... possibly Andre is trying to sanitize the article and not really the truth. many body people have a weird agenda. I vote for inclusion of "treasonist conspiracy" inclusion... 98.4.36.108 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.4.36.108 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not vote on information to put in articles. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Treatment of Senate Intelligence Committee investigation in lead

In the interest of providing a concise overview of the article in the lead, I propose changing the paragraph on the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation from the current version:

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation submitted the first in their five-volume 1,313-page report in July 2019. The committee concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment (ICA) alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released in August 2020,[1] ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries".[2][3] The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.[2]

To the following shorter summary:

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation released their report in five volumes between July 2019 and August 2020. The committee concluded that the intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed", and that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions".[2][3] The report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.[2]

I don't think we need to go into details of each of the five volumes of the report or the precise chronology of their release in the lead; a brief summary of the contents seems to be all that is needed here.

A diff is available at [1].

Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me. There was indeed too much detail for the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Seeing no objections, I'll make the change. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also no objections. Andre🚐 21:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Axios_Treene_20200818 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference NYT_Mazzetti_20200818 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b "Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure With Additional Views" (PDF). Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence United States Senate On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election (Report). Vol. 1. 2020. p. 67. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 27, 2019. Retrieved January 10, 2020.

"We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure."

There is a large section on infrastrcture interference in this article. Can anyone explain why this seemingly very important quote from a 2016 presidential briefing is not mentioned in this article? And if it can't be explained, is there any reason an adequate reference should not be supplied?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cedgqnp897lo 95.172.225.112 (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"election results" are the keywords. In spite of all their poking around and collecting information for likely use in the future (probably used since then), there is no evidence they actually changed any votes in that election. That is the point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite clear in two well cited sections in this article that the Russians were probing, but in the end did not swing the election. Indeed, it lays partial blame on Democrats Hillary Clinton and James Comey, among others. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
James Comey was not a Democrat at the time. But yes: Russian interference was probably less significant that Comey and Bannon's ratfuckery. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"But Obama's spokesman said in his statement on Tuesday: "Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes."" Bold added. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "widely accepted" that there was no successful manipulation of votes, it seems evident to me that this should make up part of the article introduction. Reading the article as it stands, at no point is this very important easily attributable idea supported, despite the articles awkward length. 95.172.225.112 (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of this article is too long as it is (I may tag it as such), but I do agree that noting that the votes themselves were not changed in the systems is important to note. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are swathes of sentences in the "Impact on election" section that run contrary to this idea.
"The question has been declared impossible to answer"
"the answer to this question will probably never be known"
"the Russian interference tactics were consistent with the reasons Clinton lost"
and many more examples. Indeed, the whole tenor of the section as it stands reads contrary to the notion that the impact on votes was not significant.
I'd have though a statement attributable to the incumbant president via an official spokesperson stating that the "widely accepted conclusion" is that there was not just no significant impact on votes, but "did not manipulate any votes" is VERY important. 95.172.225.112 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing inconsistent in this, though is it possible that it's not clear enough? This is all talking about the impact of the Russian interference efforts on American voting patterns. We'll never know how many people were manipulated via Facebook trolls or whatever other means. We know that no votes were changed directly. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s a common misconception. Nobody is claiming that the Russians managed to hack the actual vote totals and change them. They’re accurately pointing out that the Russians worked to help promote Trump and persuade people to vote for him. Those are not the same thing. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is quite a difference. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this discussion will take us off topic, I mainly wanted to deal with the claims about vote manipulation and voting infrastructure, however...
Do you agree with this statement:
"The US intelligence community published an assessment in January 2017 concluding that Russia had sought to damage Clinton's campaign and boost Trump in the vote three months earlier."
"US officials found this effort had included Russian bot farms on social media and hacking of Democratic emails, but they ultimately concluded the impact was probably limited and did not actually change the election result."
Because no reader of this article as it stands will finish reading it with that summary of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential vote in their heads. In terms of preferred source the article quoted beats over half of the current references in terms of scoring on WP:RS, especially with respect to age and source.
We have a wonderful short quote and source, not to mention a much-needed editorial necessity to shrink the intro. Why aren't those two statements at the very top of the introduction of this article? 95.172.225.112 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fear getting off topic as it's easy to get back on topic!
"they ultimately concluded the impact was probably limited and did not actually change the election result." That quote is far too vague. There are other sources that analyze the effects and conclude that the social media campaigns actually did tip the election in favor of Trump, and the Russians claim that's what happened.
That quote does not clearly differentiate between actual vote manipulation "after the fact" (unproven) and possible influence campaigns that worked as intended. The Russians are masters at this stuff and practiced it on Ukraine for several years before doing the same to the U.S. In both cases, Manafort was a key player, and in both cases he got the same preferred result.
Just as advertising works, influence campaigns work. Just how well they worked in this case is uncertain. Whatever the case, that quote is too vague. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the job of editors to assess trusted high-scoring sources on "vagueness" or indeed infer implications about hypothetical scenarios. If a trusted high-scoring source says something, we use it. This trusted high-scoring source contradicts the article as it stands. It must be used. Don't the guidelines say use high-trust sources? Don't the guidelines say use 2nd-hand? Don't the guidelines say score references on their recency? Most references in the article are worse than this one on all these assessments. 95.172.225.112 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say the BBC source "contradicts the article as it stands". In what way? Please cite the exact words in our article that are contradicted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 09:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should make it plainer in several ways:

  1. No evidence was found that actual votes were changed after the fact. That does not mean it did not happen, just that no evidence was found, or U.S. intelligence is too embarrassed to admit they blew it. We cannot close that door and say it "did not" happen. We must attribute it by writing "it is assessed" that way.
  2. The actual impact of the other forms of interference, like hacking and release of stolen documents and emails, but especially the social media campaigns, is not fully understood. Some sources assert that the Russians (with the help of Trump's constant repeating of their lies) were successful in getting enough voters to change their minds and thus swing the vote to Trump, even though Clinton still easily won the popular vote.
  3. The Russians officially deny interfering, and Trump treasonously agrees with them. That is a large part of the reason the U.S. and British intelligence communities consider him a Russian "asset", "useful idiot", and "agent of influence". Whether he is a witting or unwitting asset, his actions reveal no difference than the actions of a regular Manchurian candidate (who can be unwittingly aiding the enemy). He asked for their help, they promised it already in January 2014, and they came through in a "sweeping and systematic" fashion. He and his campaign aided and abetted their help in myriad ways (otherwise known as collusion and cooperation). It must have had some effect.
  4. The Russians unofficially claim: that they elected Trump; that he would not have won without their help; and that he is indebted to them for that help and should ignore his campaign promises and repay his debt to them. They actually hang that over him as a threat, along with the various forms of kompromat they have.

I don't recall the polling during the voting and before the final count in 2016. If there is a significant discrepancy, that usually indicates that "something" happened with the votes "after the fact" that should not have happened, but that may be a different topic we should look into. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I’d want to see the context for that statement. It sounds like they’re talking more about the folks the Russians had in Twitter and Facebook. I don’t think they’re addressing things like when the Russians released a bunch of documents 29 minutes after the “grab them by the pussy” report. I don’t know how anyone would be certain that had “limited” impact. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MilesVorkosigan, to whom are you speaking? Maybe move your comment? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project Lakhta = Russian interference operation & the Kremlin papers

Can anyone shed more light on the connections here?

Project Lakhta = Russian interference operation & the Kremlin papers.

  1. We know that allegations of recruitment and cultivation of Trump as Russian asset "Krasnov" point to Soviet, and then Russian, intelligence efforts to cultivate and compromise Trump starting in 1977, then 1987, and continuing thereafter, but that was not election interference. That was a precursor.
  2. How does the first public Russian announcement in January 2014, right after Trump's 2013 visit to Moscow, of support for Trump's election plans, fit into this?
  3. How do the following hacking operations, starting in early 2014, fit into this?
  4. Do the January 2016 Kremlin papers describe the most official, Putin supported, known kick-off point for the next phase in an operation to ensure that Trump was elected?
  5. Are we looking at the transition from "cultivation" to "promotion"? A kitchen parallel is the blending of ingredients for bread, which is a preparation for putting them into the oven. They are different types of actions.
  6. Project Lakhta appears to be the logical next step to promote a compromised asset who succeeded in getting support from the GOP.

Please try to find more sources that describe the connections. I have lots of sources, but would like to see explicit mentions of those terms that are connected by reliable sources. This, and other articles, could benefit from better coverage using such information, resulting in a logical, chronological, series of smaller articles that describe the efforts described above, starting with an article Cultivation of Trump by Russian intelligence. We tend to try to cover too much in articles that get too large. Splitting them up into smaller chronological and thematic bites might help. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_influence_on_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election