The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|}
Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed. There are at least two problems with this dispute. The first is that involves at least 13 editors, which is more than will work with moderated discussion. The second is that there appear to be conduct issues,such as possible violations of talk page guidelines. As a result of possible talk page violations or out-of-sequence editing, this archive may or may not accurately reflect the original input by the parties. The volunteers at this noticeboard have not tried to redact this talk page archive. The combination of a mixture of content and conduct issues and a very large number of editors is more than this noticeboard can expect to handle. Any content issues can be resolved by a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Conduct issues should be reported to Arbitration Enforcement. They can also be reported to WP:ANI, but Arbitration Enforcement is likely to deal with them more rapidly and harshly. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over the lifetime of the article, there have been recurring disagreements about which items deserve to be included in the timeline, and which ones are off-topic. Some editors, including me, argue for a strict scope encompassing any activities by Russian entities to interfere in U.S. elections. Some others argue for a broad interpretation of "anything linked to this affair", which may encompass essentially any news item that includes the words "Trump" and "Russia", including stuff from 30 years ago.
Recently, the discussions have flared up again, and I have attempted to structure the discussion by theme. Several talk page threads are open, and there is active participation from various people, however most discussions are repeating prior arguments and people are entrenched in their positions. Despite the fact that we are now much better informed as to the real-world scope of Russian actions, and Trump associates' involvement or lack thereof, the article has fallen victim to statu quo stonewalling, which is in my opinion not the best way to inform readers.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
After some recent edit-warring between the two "sides" involving mass removals and restorations of content (because one side deems it irrelevant / off-topic and the other deems it important to keep), I have carefully segmented the discussion by subject matter, and summarised all timeline entries that are under dispute. See the various threads under Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Disputed pre-2015 content, by theme.
How do you think we can help?
Help editors agree on the appropriate scope of the timeline.
Collectively establish criteria for inclusion of any current or future entry.
Advise on other places where out-of-scope information for this article could be better suited.
I feel that a mediation process is more likely to break the deadlock and converge on a viable path for article improvement, than a series of RfCs which would probably reinforce the entrenched positions of participating editors.
Additional statements by JFG
It would be pointless to address X1\'s long catalogue of grievances, as this is not conducive to article improvement and resolution of the dispute. X1\ regrettably fails to AGF with other editors, but that's a conduct issue; instead, we are here to talk about content. The fact that some editors tend to delete stuff while others tend to include it boils down to a fundamental disagreement on article scope, as I described in my opening statement. Indeed this scoping issue has existed ever since the article was created. For example, two years ago in a May 2017 thread, I already proposed a set of objective inclusion criteria; today I hope that mediators can help editors come to a gentlemen's agreement on the appropriate article scope, with clear criteria to include or exclude any proposed timeline event. — JFGtalk 21:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by BullRangifer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The scope of this article isn't just Russia, but anything which RS relate to the Trump-Russia investigation, Mueller probe, and any back history which RS relate to Russia's efforts to cultivate Trump for possible later use. This all includes Trump's presidential campaign and Trump's history with Russia, because he and the Russians were already talking about him running for president way back in the 1980s. They knew in 2013, before Americans knew, that he would run in 2016, and they were publicly promising to help him. (Americans didn't notice this until later.) RS say this goes very far back, and RS see that as the origins of the current interference in our elections, and they tie kompromat collected over decades about Trump's behavior as a tool in Russian's interference efforts. That's why this is all on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The article is "unreadable"? Of course. This isn't a prose article, but one of many chronological list articles, which, by their very nature, are not read in the same way as a prose article. These are bits of information from RS which are added by date, often with no obvious "readable" connection with the entries before and after. This complaint is a red herring. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
123IP writes:
"...if this is a list article" There is no "if" about it because it is indeed a chronological list. Period.
"the reader cannot sort through the list from most important to least important". Of course not, because it's in chronological order. In a prose article one can organize by theme and importance, but not here. This is better used for research, not for easy, cozy, bedtime reading.
"seemingly designed to..." The only "design" is to present what RS have said about events in the events' chronological order.
123IP seems to be seriously confused, and hold illogical expectations, about the article, its format, and its purpose. We have many chronological list articles of this nature.
What we really need is another article, using this information, to describe in prose all about the Trump-Russia investigation(s). This is a serious lack. The relatively new Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) prose article is making a brave, limited scope, start in this direction. 123IP is welcome to start writing the much needed article because we definitely need it. That would be the place to organize things with a design, with priorities, with a building thematic narrative, etc. That is not done in chronological list articles, only in prose articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I owe 123IP an apology. There was only one partial objection with a mild warning before they made the deletion. The warning was accurate as the rest of the objections and the restoration did come afterwards. I misread those times on the page and have stricken the incorrect parts above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
TFD seems to be ignorant of the background for the Russia investigation when they write "there is no evidence that any of these contacts related to the election." There is plenty of evidence. The evidence that is lacking is that Trump campaign members had any legitimate reasons to be holding so many secret meetings with Russians and then lying repeatedly about it.
We know they weren't talking about the weather because we know they were discussing election interference. How do we know? Because, starting in August 2015, no less than eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) overheard conversations between Russian assets describing their secretive contacts with Trump campaign members. I have collected more evidence and sources here (this spread around in our articles):
This foreign surveillance made some totally incidental and unintentional discoveries. The Trump campaign members were not under surveillance, but the Russian spies they were talking to were indeed under surveillance. This was the earliest recent evidence of active collusion between the campaign and Russians, and lots more was to come. (Strictly speaking, in 2013 (before Americans knew about his plans), when Trump and Russians were discussing him starting to run for president in 2015, and that the Russians promised to help him, that was earlier.)
X1\, there was no fishing. The relevant part of TFD's comment in that diff is "we can remove all mention of Trump's contacts with Russians." If that is the real intent of all this, then we are dealing with a serious matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
TFD, collusion is not a legal term, whereas conspiracy is. The Mueller Report did not prove conspiracy. The more informal terms "coordination" and "collusion" were examined by Mueller, but only in the formal and legal sense that they "require an agreement" (IOW conspiracy). No, that agreement may never have been formalized, but there was plenty of what is informally known as "collusion": "the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" (Mueller), and multiple intelligence agencies (see above) would disagree with you that no collusion happened in the sense of directly planning with foreign agents how to help Trump win. They listened to Trump campaign members and Russian agents talking about election interference, and it alarmed them so much that they informed U.S. intelligence. It was so serious a matter that it was handled by in person direct contact between Robert Hannigan (GCHQ head) and CIA director Brennan, not even by phone or mail.
Mueller wrote: "We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
To illustrate, they were caught playing baseball without first making a formal agreement. They were colluding, but not in the legal sense of a formal agreement, which is what Mueller needed to prove. In the end, you can call it what you will, but it was coordination of activities with enemy agents to disrupt the election, to harm Clinton, and help Trump win. It was wrong.
Giuliani said it best: "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. I said the President of the United States. There is not a single bit of evidence the President of the United States committed the only crime you can commit here, conspiring with the Russians to hack the DNC." -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by FoxyGrampa75
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jawz101
My whole dispute can be summed up with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries. This article goes back decades leading up to a premise that this involved Donald Trump- omitting that he had to be picked over Rick Santorum, Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, ben arson, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ted Cruz... and finally Hillary Clinton.
Read that last sentence out loud to a friend and then convince them why it's not relevant.
The only edit I see in the point of this article is to start after Trump won the primaries or remove Trump's name from the whole equation. I hate to give away the secret, but that's the gist of why this article needs to be scrapped.
Summary of dispute by Mr Ernie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by My very best wishes
First of all, there is nothing wrong with the page. Yes, the timeline is long, but it is well organized and 95% sourced. The timeline is highly informative, much better than many other pages in Wikipedia. If you look at my edit history in article space, I am mostly a "deletionist". I like removing or fixing poorly sourced or poorly written content. However, there is not much to delete on this page.
What's the problem? I think this is definitely not a content, but behavior. I think one of the contributors, JFG (filer of this request) is engaged in WP:OR. For example, this long thread is not based on discussion of any specific sources and distorts/misrepresents the items present in the list. But this is really simple. If something was described in RS as related to the subject of the page ("Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"), this should be included to the timeline. Including or excluding something must be decided by sources. WP:NOR please.
Another contributor, Onetwothreeip is engaged in sustained edit warring on this page ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] and a lot more), flatly ignores what the sources actually tell, makes comments like that, and asks others to support him with reverts [7]. Importantly, a lot of content Onetwothreeip would like to remove [8] was NOT at all discussed on article talk page, contrary to his edit summary.
So, I suspect this is probably for another noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Onetwothreeip
JFG, The Four Deuces and Slatersteven have it right. There is overwhelming status quo stonewalling particular by two editors who have been very disruptive. There are parts of the article that really should be uncontroversial to remove. I might write more here later. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
In response to My very best wishes, I will just say that our role is to summarise information, not to include everything that has ever been reported that could be construed as even tenuously related to the subject. I also agree with Starship.paint that content can be moved to other articles, new and existing. The massive article as it is now is simply unreadable, I think someone observed that it would be over 100 A4 pages if printed out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
My response to BullRangifer is simply that if this is a list article, the reader cannot sort through the list from most important to least important, in any way that may be defined. Call it a list article if you want, it's an unreadable list then, seemingly designed to make the reader give up on thinking there is any substance to the implication made by the title of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
In general, the few editors who include the excessive amounts generally act as though they are trying to prove that Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign was linked to Russian business interests and the Russian government. Even though there was undoubtedly such involvement, this is not something that has to be assertively proven. This is evident from all these minor details which are used to show the guilt and the motivations of certain people involved, as if this was some kind of criminal trial where it's relevant to analyse these people's thoughts. The facts should speak for themselves and we should remain completely neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
What an absolute nonsense. There were no objections on the talk page to removing those columns when I had removed them. If you would actually bother to read that talk page section, the objections came after I had removed them. You wouldn't even have to compare the edit history of the article to know that, the talk page participants make that clear themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate JFG's efforts to try and bring this to some conclusion, but I don't think this is going to help with the article. I agree that it certainly needs work, though JFG and I do mostly disagree on the specific content under dispute. I'm happy to participate in the discussion if a volunteer decides to take it on, but until then I'll save my fingers. - 20:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Not that anyone needs more to read, but as an example of some of the craziness present in this article, I point you to this section on the talk page about a duplicate entry on the timeline with almost identical wording for two separate bullets. JFG and I mostly disagree about the inclusion criteria for content in this article, but on this point it was very clear to me that something needed to be changed or removed. It was still inexplicably blocked because removing the duplicative entry would somehow be interpreting the source in such a way as to be WP:OR, which is ludicrous. - 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, I'm very interested to hear fromWebsurfer2 on this as they have contributed the majority of the content to the main article. - 20:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
I have disagreed that this needs to cover anything other then the interference and the events linked directly to it. Its not about Donnies contacts (or links) with Russia (that is covered by another article), its not about the investigations (that is covered by another article). All I think this does is muddy the water and makes it hard to follow the actual events. It also makes it far to big, and thus adds to the above difficulty.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Agree with JFG's overview. Currently the article contains information that anyone who has worked for Trump who has had contact with Russians. That has all become moot since there is no evidence that any of these contacts related to the election. TFD (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
User:BullRangifer, your argument seems to be that since people connected to Trump had so many discussions with the Russians, some of them must have been with the purpose of coordinating the election effort. That of course was something Mueller investigated and found no evidence. Your statement that there was "evidence of active collusion" is contrary to what Mueller found. Also, you fail to provide the context of my remarks to My Very Best Wishes. He said that the claim that Trump was a Russian agent was a "flat earth theory," yet at the same time claimed that a book that argued Trump might be a Russian agent was a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Websurfer2
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
To the Readers of this DRN posting: Please forgive me if I make mistakes in this process as I have never participated in a DRN posting.[9]
There are multiple Users involved that the Filer left out upon filing.[10] and it is an example of my concern about what the Filer is doing, upon which I will detail further.
As BullRangifer has stated this is a red herring, which it is at best. This DRN posting appears to be an unhelpful timesuckSOAPBOX. On the surface, the behavior can call CIR into question. One can see some more of this from the section titles created at the article, such as "This article is very long", "Too much here", and "Finally getting on with fixing the article"; or this from User talk:Awilley. Notice the hyperbolic language and inherent illogic in the deletionists' discussion. I find the Filer JFG's Dispute overview description as clearly biased, and yet another example of the battleground mentality that has been exhibited. There are not two "sides". There are deletionists and those attempting to follow the spirit of BRD. This DRN posting itself appears to be abstractly similar to the GANG 123IP has attempted to create with not just JFG, but The Four Deuces (who I'll call 4x2) and Slatersteven (Slatersteven has overly avoided the ganging).[12] It is inappropriate for the Filer to characterize events in passive voice verbs regarding "discussions have flared up again" as the "flare-up" was by 123IP and JFG; both by mass deletions (examples can be given besides the ones below).
The scope is stable and long-standing. As some context here, there are by just one count many ongoing investigations into this topic,[1], and there are there are 12 that are unknown due to the still-redacted Mueller Report. This is not the time for the ignorant or premature deletions, as many things won't be clear for (as a guess) two years; so keep what the RSs tell us. While JFG has politely worded rhetoric here (and only recently at the Timeline Talk page, with the veneer of BRD), along with 123IPs' here (as My very best wishes pointed to), the deletionists' actions are very different at the article itself as is their lack of concern for editors that don't align with their agenda.
I call b.s on "I have attempted to structure the discussion" by the Filer, as what has happened is yet another mass deletion storm (some most recent examples: 27 April 2019, 28 April 2019, 29 April 2019 123IP, 29 April 2019 JFG, 30 April 2019, 2 May 2019, 3 May 2019 JFG, 3 May 2019 123IP; other past links can be given). Included in these is an example attempt to change the longstanding scope/lede without discussion (other examples can be given). JFG has previously deleted my explanatory notes from the Talk page (links can be given). The deletionists' behaviors are followed-up by IDHT; while mocking, downplaying, and trivializing RSs and spewing OR. Note: my characterizations are from observing the deletionists at my over 1 3/4 years contributing to the Timeline(s).
Make no mistake, this is an epic event whose roots go back decades. It has been called called a "political pearl harbor","an act of war" (Dick Cheney, example), the "most successful covert operation in history" (Michael Hayden (general)), and Michael Morell compares it with 9/11 (see Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 1#Timeline). Would one want to arbitrarily limit the Timeline of the event that brought the U.S. into World War II? Only someone with a biased agenda would. At Wikipedia we go where the RSs lead us. Learn about the insidious tactics of the Internet Research Agency and related actors; with their goal being corrosive to democratic society. These experienced editors, deletionists, should very well understand what a "bold edit" in BRD is by now, but persistently behave as if they don't.
Why would someone ostensibly engage in BRD if they have not read the RSs involved? Or worse why would someone change the meaning of content on the wp article without having read the RSs involved? There are many reasons, some are to gather information, to get attention, to disrupt, to muddy, to confuse, and to attrit. Tendentious andtedious. The Filer has admitted not reading the RSs, yet still engaged in BRD. The Filer has changed the Timelines content without knowing the RS. Links can be provided.
While honest editors are attempting to follow this DRN posting's process, JFG [13][14][15] and 123IP [16] have continued mass deletions; disingenuous to this DRN process.
Some of the notable items that were deleted (and since reverted) are the oft quoted Trump son's admitting (recorded) that a great deal of their money comes from Russia:
Trump Jr., then an executive vice president of The Trump Organization, says, "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."[2][3][4]
Eric Trump tells author James Dodson, "We don't rely on American banks [...] We have all the funding we need out of Russia", and says, "We go there all the time". In May 2017, Eric Trump calls this "fabricated" and an example of why people distrust the media.[5][2][6][7][8]
If I didn't know better, one might think this disingenuousness against the DRN process, this denialism by the deletionists, is an attempt to get themselves banned or even blocked from the Wikipedia community entirely. And I don't know better. Maybe some of the deletionists are meatpuppets attracted by rageaholism? I don't know. It would be likely, for the good for the Wikipedia community, given just one more violation of the spirit of BRD, and disrespect for the DRN process, not to say the disrespect for non-deletionist wp editors; that JFG and 123IP be, at least topic banned; 4x2 be at least temporarily banned (other deletionists could be added), and possibly Phmoreno banned for COI editing. Just an idea (and not just mine) to improve the culture and decrease the attrition forces disingenuously working-on Wikipedia. To send a positive message to beleaguered editors volunteering for the betterment of Wikipedia. Long live Wikipedia.
Thank you to the Readers, and particularly the Volunteers, of this my first DRN posting for hopefully bearing with me. This has been a rushed job, but I have attempted to organize it (cleaning-up some of the errors; as this posting was created in two chucks chunks over today and the WIP saved here yesterday); but I have, out of brevity here and my time resources, left-out much evidence of the deletionists/denialists negative disruptive behavior at the Timeline(s) but I will provide links, if given the time. While I would still call my posting here in this section a "Work in Progress", my guess is, this Summary of dispute by X1\ is a start, and there is more to do. X1\ (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I concur and second Casprings opening "Summary of dispute". X1\ (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding 4x2's "flat earth theory" comment, per BullRangifer pointer, seems like fishing.
Regarding Additional statements by JFG: While JFG throws around phrases such as "conduct issue", it is not, for me, personal. My guess the gamble in this DRN is those who have not delved, sometimes rather deeply, into this topic and the edit histories of the Timelines and associated Talk pages will assume it is. Sure it is an attempt at some kind of intimidation by JFG of me and other followers of Wikipedia's BRD spirit; but what matters is quality content driven by credible RSs. X1\ (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I second My very best wishes's comments regarding "What's the problem?" regarding the deletionists JFG and 123IP behavior here per wp:OR & edit warring. Other deletionists do this also. X1\ (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
^Marusak, Joe (May 15, 2017). "Eric Trump said Russians financed golf courses, author insists". CharlotteObserver.com. Retrieved December 12, 2017. That's when he said Eric Trump told him, "We have pretty much all the money we need from investors in Russia," Dodson said. ... "This story is completely fabricated and just another example of why there is such a deep distrust of the media in our country #FakeNews," Eric Trump said.
^Littlefield, Bill (May 11, 2017). "A Day (And A Cheeseburger) With President Trump". WBUR-FM. Retrieved December 12, 2017. He said, 'Well, we don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.' I said, 'Really?' And he said, 'Oh, yeah. We've got some guys that really, really love golf, and they're really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.' Now that was [a little more than] three years ago, so it was pretty interesting."
Summary of dispute by Casprings
This shouldn't be this hard. If a WP:RS connects a meeting/event to Russian interference, that should be in the timeline. The question is, would it be useful for a reader to understand Trump connections to Russia in the 1980s and do WP:RS connect that event, even if not directly. However, user:JFG and others have taken a bit of ownership of the article, instead of allowing the article based on WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion in multiple sections of the article talk page. It has been inconclusive, which is not surprising when it has been scattered over multiple sections. The filing party has given proper notice. While it is a good idea to try to do something to resolve the inconclusive discussion, moderated discussion with thirteen parties and a moderator is like trying to herd four sheep, five cats, three rabbits, and a llama. One or more Requests for Comment are more likely to work. This request will be left open to see if a volunteer is willing to try either to conduct moderated discussion or to facilitate the RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - I have read the statement by User:JFG. I am not as optimistic as they are that moderated discussion will help, but if a volunteer wants to try, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved, though I have worked on closely related articles and I have worked with most of the editors involved. I stumbled onto this discussion and would just like to say that I agree with Robert McClenon that an RfC (on this broad issue of article scope) would have the best chance of resolving this dispute. R2 (bleep) 17:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.