Talk:Links between Trump associates and Russian officials/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Should this paragraph citing The Atlantic stay in?

Should this paragraph detailing the opinion of an Atlantic writer from almost 4 years ago which has not held up in more recent sourcing and given that the Mueller investigation did not find any evidence of conspiracy or coordination stay under the Steele Dossier subsection in an article about links between Trump associates and Russian officials?

David A. Graham, staff writer at The Atlantic, has written: "It's no wonder Trump is upset about the dossier, but his mantra that 'there was no collusion [and] everybody including the Dems knows there was no collusion' rings false these days. While there's not yet any public evidence to indicate a crime was committed, or that Trump was involved, it is clear that the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia, and to keep that secret." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

has not held up in more recent sourcing Such as? the Mueller investigation did not find any evidence of conspiracy or coordination It is more accurate to say Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to prevail beyond a reasonable doubt in federal court. soibangla (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, this article is not about the Steele Dossier. So we don't need a great big section about it. What makes this staff writer's opinion from 4 years ago at the Atlantic relevant?

Second of all, this is just some random journalist's opinion, and it is outdated. Here's explicitly what Mueller wrote - "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities."

So why does this paragraph about an unrelated topic that is out of date and certainly UNDUE need to stay in? Please justify why you've reinserted this material. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You assert it has been negated by more recent sources, so it's a legitimate question to ask which. Mueller is a prosecutor. In his world, "did not establish" is not synonymous with "did not find any evidence." I am not personally inclined to add commentary from a single writer, but it's been there a while and I'm just asking you to provide more recent sources that negate it, as you've said. soibangla (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, it is clear that the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia, and to keep that secret is still correct and very relevant here. You're grabbing at straws in a seemingly blind fashion, as you didn't notice how that wording actually should stay in an article about links between Trump associates and Russian officials, to use your own words. -- Valjean (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Which more recent sourcing has mentioned Mr Grahams opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You reinserted it, so I presume you have some? Can you justify why it should be there since you put it back? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Should this paragraph citing Lawfare also stay in?

Should this paragraph from the Lawfare blog be included in this article? The phrase "the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible" does not track with more recent assessments like NYT saying "deeply flawed," or also calling it a "compendium of rumors and unproven assertions.

Lawfare has noted that the "Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials." Mr Ernie (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you should slow down and let us resolve one matter before moving to another. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, regardless of the dossier's flaws, that content is still accurate and relevant to this article. -- Valjean (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

“Seems credible” is not in line with current assessments by reliable sources. Can we not do better? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What we had early on was that some parts were proven true, but with the passage of years no other parts have been (publicly) proven true, which leads some to conclude "it's been proven 100% false," but I'm not aware of a RS that flatly declares that, as opposed to "growing doubts" or such. Do you have one? soibangla (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Who is claiming it’s been 100% proven false? I’ve given you plenty of sources now here and at the main Steele article with updated characterizations. I’m saying “seems credible” is not how most reliable sources describe it now. Maybe in the past, but now it’s time to get current. How many sources would you like to see before I can convince you this one blog from almost 3 years ago isn't the best way to describe it anymore? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, are you aware that the second sentence in the lead of the Steele dossier article states: "NPR has described the controversial opposition research as an "explosive dossier of unsubstantiated and salacious material about President Trump's alleged ties with Russia".[1]? That sentence violates lead because it is not used in the body of the article, yet it's still there. I have never challenged it. Do you think it's good to have it there? I think so, even though it lacks nuance and feeds into the mistaken belief that all the dossier's allegations are "unsubstantiated and salacious". In fact, while most of the allegations are unproven (not disproven or false), a few of the most important ones have been corroborated and only two allegations are salacious. So be it. So why is that relevant here? It points to a simplistic misunderstanding shared by many and why they "get it wrong".

What you're "getting wrong" here is believing that any faults with the dossier automatically undermine the whole dossier and the proven facts that the (1) Russians interfered in the election (2) to put Trump in power, and the (3) Trump campaign had myriad illicit links with Russians, the last point being the topic here. This article is primarily about those "links", not about the "dossier" or the "Russian interference". We only touch on those two topics when they intersect with the "links" issue, and they obviously do. Even a dubious writer like Erik Wemple, whose articles at WaPo often contain erroneous assumptions about the Dossier and Trump/Russia, recognizes this problem with the breathless claims made by right-wing sources:

"There is, indeed, far more to Russia-Trump than the dossier. Just spend some time with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report, a nearly 1,000-page document that lays out the whole mess. “The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary,” noted the New York Times in its summary."[2]

Note that last sentence, which is very relevant for this article: "Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary." Yes, "There is, indeed, far more to Russia-Trump than the dossier" and faults with the dossier do not undermine those established facts about the myriad illicit "links" we are documenting here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Adam Schiff just shut down Morgan Ortagus. After explaining how anyone who lied to the FBI and Steele should be prosecuted, and not pardoned like Trump did with those who lied for him, he deals with her comments about the Steele dossier. Just because someone lied to Steele, we should not allow that be used "as a smoke screen to somehow shield Donald Trump's culpability for inviting Russia to help him in the election, which they did, for trying to coerce Ukraine into helping him in the next election, which he did, into inciting an insurrection, which he did. None of that is undercut, none of that serious misconduct is in any way diminished by the fact that people lied to Christopher Steele."[3] None of that undercuts the facts regarding the myriad illicit contacts dealt with in this article. -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say at this point it can be trashed. With how RS are treating it these days its probably getting close to a BLP vio to rely on it for anything important. Yes early surface level stuff that was already matter of public knowledge has been confirmed, because it was not really in question. The main thrust and the important parts of the dossier in general have either been proven false or have little to know backing in reality, like most conspiracy theories. We are not here to promote WP:FRINGE views.PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It can in fact be both, as the general thrust of its accusations can be broadly correct whilst most of the individual facts can be wrong. But I am unsure we should be using a blog as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Lawfare is no ordinary blog, and its articles are written by subject matter experts. -- Valjean (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What experts in politics or espionage?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The legal areas where those subjects often intersect. They are often lawyers and/or experienced spooks and people with experience in government departments. -- Valjean (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a blog funded by the think tank Brookings Institution, which is an org that gives 96% of its donations to Democrats. The claim to fame for the blog is their anti-Trump coverage. While they almost certainly are experts in their field, they are probably undue because of all the other stuff as a fairly partisan source. PackMecEng (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it's been challenged at RSN, doesn't appear on RSP soibangla (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There are many types of RS we use here, many times with attribution: (1) straight facts; (2) analysis; (3) opinions; (4) others. Much of Lawfare's stuff is facts and expert analysis, the kind that is highly valued here. Only when bias affects the factual accuracy of a source is there a problem. Like every single reliable source available on the planet, context determines the appropriateness of usage. It is problematic when the bias of editors here leads them to exclude a factually accurate source. Be careful not to approach such behavior. -- Valjean (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean It is problematic when the bias of editors here leads them to exclude a factually accurate source. Be careful not to approach such behavior. You have been warned to stop personalizing disputes. It is not helpful and only hurts your position. Also in this case, its hypocritical. PackMecEng (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The only editor who has said this should be included so far is Valjean. Any others? Otherwise I will remove it. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You have no policy-based reason for removing it. Keep that hair-trigger finger away from the editing button until a consensus to remove long-standing analysis from subject matter experts is reached. -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The policies are WP:UNDUE and WP:RS for starters. You're the only one so far who strongly feels this blurb from a blog should be included. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not me alone. User:Soibangla reverted your deletion of that long-standing content.

The "Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials."

There is nothing in those two sentences that contradict the proven facts relative to the subject of this article and how Mueller "produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier", most notably the ones about these illicit links. The dossier was right about that, and none of the current events related to Charles Dolan Jr. and Danchenko affect that fact. This is not the right article for litigation of those matters.

The section on the Steele dossier only contains content relative to this article subject, and since it got this right, there is no content from the dossier used here that can be considered "deeply flawed", "rumors" or "unproven assertions". Those opinions apply to the dossier's "unproven" allegations. --Valjean (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

What sources support that? The ones I link criticize the document as a whole, and they must be included in your one sided presentation currently existing in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's parse what's going on here:

1. "What sources support that?" The sources used in this Wikipedia article support that Mueller and the dossier were right about the myriad illicit links, and that is the point made by the author of the Lawfare article, hence its relevance here. At Wikipedia, we do not restrict content to "facts only", we also include analysis and opinion. This one is analysis and it's properly attributed, so it's all according to policy and wrapped up with a nice ribbon and bow.
2. "The ones I link criticize the document as a whole." One article's rather sloppily expressed opinion does not begin to cover the whole topic here or the whole dossier. Other sources have contrary views. That simplistic assertion by the New York Times authors, if really meant to be understood the way you do, is simplistic and goes against other things the same authors have written. They are obviously not implying that everything in the dossier is "faulty", "rumors", and "unproven assertions". That would be false, as there are allegations in the dossier that are proven and true, and plenty of RS have pointed out where the dossier got it right. Whatever the case, the only thing of relevance here is what the dossier says about the topic of THIS article. Comments about other parts of the dossier are off-limits here. There are already negative comments about the dossier in this article. No more are needed. That's bludgeoning.
3. Your addition is unrelated to the subject of this article or to the content used from the dossier in this article. It's irrelevant here.
4. It's a gross NPOV violation that does not serve as a "balance" in any policy-based sense, only in a "something was added that I don't like, even though it's on topic, so I'll "balance" the score by throwing in something negative, even though it's not on topic" sense. That's a weird POV attack on the dossier. That's not what we do here. We're supposed to stay on topic and not allow our personal POV to affect our editing.
5. It's a coatrack attack that poisons the well. The subject here is not the dossier, but "links between..." Your addition is a gratuitous and off-topic swipe at the dossier, ergo a coatrack violation. The dossier is not the topic here.

Valjean (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean that the dossier is not the subject here per RS, but I did find an interesting development about the links to Russia in a recent AP article which serves to remind us there is still an ongoing investigation which has raised reasonable doubt and lots of questions. There have been lies on both sides, and Durham has 3 criminal indictments in 2 months. These indictments have directly effected how we view the trustworthiness of the FBI investigations, the firing/retirements of agents, and the spin/slant/POV we're seeing in this and related articles about the allegations aimed at Trump and those connected with his administration. Two parties - two sides to the story but a single POV dominates - media either got it wrong, spun it because of bias, or sensationalized their reporting for clickbait purposes. WP articles should not follow suit, rather we should rise above the news media frenzy and remain compliant with NPOV and BLP. Quoting AP:

The indictment, the third criminal case brought by Durham and the second in a two-month span, is likely to boost complaints from Trump allies that well-connected Democrats worked behind the scenes to advance suspicions about Trump and Russia that contributed to the FBI’s election-year investigation.

The case does not undercut investigators’ findings that the Kremlin aided the Trump campaign — conclusions that were not based on the dossier, which was barely mentioned in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. But the indictment does endorse a longstanding concern about the Russia probe: that opposition research the FBI relied on as it surveilled a Trump campaign adviser was marred by unsupported, uncorroborated claims.

Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 12:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, I agree with your concerns about these latest developments. I too have them, as expressed here: Talk:Steele dossier#Danchenko arrested. Would you mind copying your comment to that section? -- Valjean (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Durham is not done, and he may yet drop a bomb, but thus far his indictments "raising questions" is what we commonly hear when the "reasons" for questions are quite thin, if even existent, and folks start speculating for fun and profit (especially whenever HRC is mentioned). That sort of insinuation is what should not be included in our articles. Let's examine what we have:

• Clinesmith: he was indicted for altering an email, but it was not a falsification, because Page had, in fact, not been a CIA source since 2013, so it was true he was not then a source. Clinesmith was indicted for the alteration itself, regardless of the nature of the alteration. Also, Page was put on FISA surveillance as early as 2013 (a fact often conveniently overlooked) and again in October 2016, one month after he was fired from the Trump campaign, so FBI wasn't interested in him as a member of the Trump campaign per se, they had suspicions since years before he joined the campaign, and once he left the campaign the FBI was free to wiretap him again. Clinesmith altered the email for a warrant renewal in June 2017, after Trump was president. So this has no bearing on Durham's charter: Trump's belief that top FBI officials opened a hoax investigation without predication.

• Sussman: his meeting with Baker was in September 2016, after the FBI had already opened Crossfire Hurricane in July. It may be interesting that a man with links to Clinton met with Baker, but again, it doesn't reflect badly on the FBI and it has nothing to do with Durham's charter: Trump's belief that top FBI officials opened a hoax investigation without predication. So who's the actual target of Durham's investigation? (possible hint: he also looked into the Clinton Foundation, after John Huber just spent two years looking at it and found nothing).

• Danchenko: the indictment suggested Dolan may have told Danchenko about the ptape allegation, but after the dossier was released in January 2017 (remember, after Trump was elected) Dolan told a Russian client he had doubts about the dossier. So what we have is an indictment of a man for lying about talking to Dolan, who is linked to the Clintons. This has no bearing on Durham's charter: Trump's belief that top FBI officials opened a hoax investigation without predication.

AP reports the indictment "is likely to boost complaints from Trump allies," but it doesn't say the complaints are legitimate. They complain about all sorts of things that aren't legitimate, it never stops. Whether the Clinton campaign tried to get the FBI to investigate Trump, and whether the FBI acted on that, are two distinct issues. The latter is relevant to Durham's charter, the former is not. The FBI is likely well-acquainted with people trying to get them to investigate their enemies, but that doesn't mean they fall for it. So if the real mission is go after HRC, some might get some red meat to play with here, but it won't say anything about any plot by Comey/McCabe/Strzok. Not yet, anyway. And that's what this whole investigation is ostensibly about, and why the Durham indictments don't belong in this article.soibangla (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. -- Valjean (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and one that works both ways; however, analysis is WP:OR, and it’s something on which we should not ^{added omission 12:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)} be writing our articles. We do not write WP articles based on speculation, spin, OR and/or POV pushing one side over another - that’s what biased news media does. We simply write in compliance with NPOV without injecting OR, and we summarize what RS sources say (not just biased ones, and we use in-text attribution, DUE, Balance, etc.) less our own opinions about what RS are saying. POV pushing comes into play when we choose only those RS that agree with our own POV, and fail to include the opposition’s position. There is no right or wrong when it comes to WP & political opinion which is why facts matter and speculation does not because it is based on opinion or conjecture that lacks solid evidence. Atsme 💬 📧 12:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme@Valjean@Soibangla... This article is exactly what Larry Sanger was talking about in his blog about WP is being badly biased. Read the above discussion and you will see how right he was when he wrote that "Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead." Kolma8 (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

How, specifically? soibangla (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the simple analysis of the sources in this article will show you that the vast majority of the news outlets used as sources are left leaning.

Out of all news outlets I counted 155 references as of 11/22/21. I used both mediabiasfactcheck.com and allsides.com to place a news outlet in one of the three categories below:

Left or Leaning left bias - 114 references - 73.5% of all ref's:

CNN and CNNMoney (x27) Left

BuzzFeed (x2) Left

Time (x2) Left

Rolling Stone (x1) Left

MSNBC (x1) Left

GQ (x1)

New York Daily News (x1) Left Center

Buffalo News (x1) Left Center

CBC News (x1) Left Center

CBS News (x1) Left Center

The Guardian (x3) Left Center

The Washington Post (x19) Left Center

The New York Times (x36) Left Center

NBC news (x10) Left Center

Los Angeles Times (x2) Left Center

The Independent (x2) Left Center

ABC News (x4) Left Center

Center Left, Center, Center Right bias - 35 references - 22.6%:

Politico (x6) Center Left

USA Today (x1) Center Left

Business insider (x2) Center Left

BBC (x1) Center Left

NPR (x2) Center Left

Bloomberg law and Bloomberg (x5) Center Left

Associated Press (x6) Least Biased

The Hill (x8) Least Biased

Axios (x1)

Financial Times (x1) Least Biased

Reuters (x1) Least Biased

Foreign Policy (x1) Least Biased

Right or Leaning right bias - 6 references - 3.9%:

The Wall Street Journal (x3) Right Center

Telegraph (x1) Right

Fox News (x2) Right

So, the bias and POV of this article should be pretty obvious. Kolma8 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Fox News references. I suppose they'll need to be removed per WP:RSP. soibangla (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla...What would be the basis for Fox News removal? Rolling Stone should be not used per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. Kolma8 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that list proves. We use sources because of their accuracy, not because of their bias. For one thing, with the exception of Fox (that is iffy for political subjects), they are all RS. If there were more RS that were right-wing and accurate, we'd use them, but there aren't. Since the advent of TFG, most have slid so far to the right they have lost touch with reality. They even push TFG's Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election and that he is still president. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, right-wing sources share TFG's bias on this subject, so they don't report on this subject, if they do at all(!) in a manner that is not deceptive or false. Those sources push "Russiagate" conspiracy theories, as described below. You surely wouldn't want us to use sources that push those lies, do you? That's why we use sources that are actually factual. -- Valjean (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean. You are generally off topic with your patronizing, so please let's keep it on the matters. WP is pretty clear on all the conspiracy theories, I am not sure what is your point even. And surely the right leaning media will have the right bias and generally based on my experience in support of Trump and all the Trump related topics. I hope that is not a secret for those in the US. Lastly, Fox news is there with Business Insider and BuzzFeed per WP:RSP and Rolling Stone is in the "avoid it" category, so to my point that you only see what you wish to see. Good luck editing. Kolma8 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolma8, I have removed the Rolling Stone source and replaced it with two others. There are myriad RS that document the flood of lies from Trump and his campaign denying their myriad illicit contacts with Russians. Their stories keep shifting, often contradicting themselves, and several campaign members were convicted of lying. This article has great graphics demonstrating this phenomenon: How Team Trump keeps changing its story in the Russia investigation. -- Valjean (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolma8, what relevance does this have to all the proven and illicit "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials"?

Sanger is far from a reliable source for anything but his own opinions. His understanding of NPOV is seriously flawed and he pushes conspiracy theories and denialism of proven facts about the Trump campaign's dubious relationship to Russian interference and how Trump personally welcomed, facilitated, and cooperated with that interference. Sanger is a "Russiagate" truther, which encompasses a number of false beliefs. People who use the term Russiagate to denigrate the legitimate investigations into Russian interference usually have these false beliefs pushed by unreliable sources: they deny or downplay Russian interference as a non-issue; deny or defend the secretive and illicit links between Trump campaigners and known Russian intelligence agents; believe the lies and denials told by campaigners about those links; believe that the FBI put a spy in the Trump campaign; believe that the dossier was far more important than it was and that it was the trigger for the start of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation; believe that all the negative things RS have written about the wholly innocent Trump are just part of a witch hunt against him, rather than proper documentation of him shooting himself in the foot; and that when Wikipedia editors neutrally document what RS say they are somehow violating NPOV because the end result here actually looks like what RS are saying. That last one is where Sanger goes off the rails and reveals his accusations against Wikipedia show a very faulty understanding of NPOV.

If Sanger has some legitimate point (even a broken clock is right twice a day), you haven't told us what it is or how it relates to "Links...". Even if he has some good points, we would have to get them from RS before we could use them. -- Valjean (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sanger wrote an opinion obviously, so you don't have to agree with him. As I pointed out already to you -- with all due respect -- that you cherry picking of the media coverage of the subject of this article is a result of your bias of which you are not aware. So you conclude what you conclude. And as one smart man is quoted saying, Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true.

Cheers and good luck with your search of the proven and illicit, but remember another smart man's favorite motto, De omnibus dubitandum. Kolma8 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I just replied to you above, after your list of sources. I am VERY well aware of my biases, and they are informed by RS. (I also read right-wing sources, so I know who's telling the truth and who's lying.) Above I explain how we choose reliable sources because of their accuracy, not because of their biases. If more right-wing sources described this subject accurately, we'd use them, but most are so extreme now that their bias has caused them to become counterfactual on this topic. -- Valjean (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Good. Thank you! Please read again WP:NOTTRUTH. You seem to be obsessed with truth and lies, which is fine unless it is making its way into your WP contridutions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It is relevant here only as it is documented in RS. Then it becomes very relevant. That's the only way I'd know if something was true or not. I live by this quote from Bertrand Russell: "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." That's the principle behind our RS and Verifiability policies. If you find evidence in any of my edits to an article that "it is making its way into your WP contributions", I'd appreciate it if you notified me. I am far from perfect. -- Valjean (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Holland?

BTW, "Holland" is the commonly used English word for the Netherlands, even if it's not very precise, and its inhabitants are commonly called "Dutch". See Netherlands vs. Holland. We can easily change it to Netherlands rather than deleting all mention. For better or worse, the use of "Holland" to mean the whole of the "Netherlands" is so common that the country's official tourism website is found at Holland.com: "Holland.com is the official website for the Netherlands as a tourist destination. The website is managed by the Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions." -- Valjean (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The name of the country is the Netherlands. Holland is not used formally to refer to the Netherlands. I can't even believe it came to this. Kolma8 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Common, historical usage by native English speakers and formal usage are two very different things. The government of The Netherlands recognizes this fact so strongly they use Holland.com for their tourist website. Whatever the case, that is not the important theme for this thread. -- Valjean (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What is your point here? Why can't you just admit that we should use the Netherlands? Unbelievable. Kolma8 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have missed this above: "We can easily change it to Netherlands rather than deleting all mention." -- Valjean (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"All mention" was deleted for a different reason... see the section above. Kolma8 (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, this happened in 2019: Dutch government ditches Holland to rebrand as the Netherlands. I thought it happened much earlier. -- Valjean (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead at Holland deals with this matter. -- Valjean (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected this article for 3 days to put an end to the slow-motion edit war that was occurring. Please use this time to start a discussion about any disputed edits that you'd like to make to the article. When the protection expires, do not restart the edit war - only make potentially controversial edits if there is explicit consensus for them. If the edit war returns after the protection expires, I will consider placing discretionary sanctions on this article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say go ahead and place the DS Scotty. As a side note the shadow effect on your signature makes it hard to read for users like me with poor eyesight. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Ernie. It's tricky for my eyes too. I'm 70. -- Valjean (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No need to parse it as long as it's recognizable. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

2015-2016 foreign surveillance of Russian targets

User:Kolma8, I am pretty certain that parts of some of your edits might have some merit. Since you are making large alterations to that section, and since there is disagreement with your changes, it's best to work on that content here. In the meantime, please stop changing the article until we have worked this out. Pinging User:SPECIFICO.

Here's the status quo version (with updates from ongoing changes):

Over a period of several months, starting in August 2015, and before U.S. intelligence agencies started any investigations, the CIA and NSA began to receive reports from several allied foreign intelligence agencies (reportedly those of the United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, and the Netherlands) describing overheard conversations between known Russian agents and Trump campaign members. The conversations "formed a suspicious pattern", and while their nature is known by intelligence agencies, it has not been revealed to the public.

Then, in April 2016, the BBC reported that the CIA director received an alleged tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign". The Dutch also reported how they watched a group of Russians hacking the DNC.

In March 2017, The New York Times also reported that British and Dutch agencies had evidence of more secret meetings between Trump campaign members and Russian officials in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries, and that U.S. intelligence had overheard Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, talking about contacts with Trump associates. Some Russian officials were arguing about how much to interfere in the election. Then cyber attacks on state electoral systems led the Obama administration to directly accuse the Russians of interfering.

Now let's discuss proposed improvements.

Kolma8, please start by taking each of your edits and discussing them one at a time. (I hope this will work for you.) -- Valjean (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean...Your whole hypocrisy is appalling. As you and others asked of me to reach consensus and "discuss" the propose improvement reverting every edit that I have done, but yet you go and edit as you please without looking for an actual consensus as if you are a self proclaimed admin of this article. Kolma8 (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just ignore that personal attack. You didn't respond to my request immediately below, and others started making changes. Then you complained that "The issue with the first paragraph is not solved." So I reread all the sources and tried to deal with each of your objections. Did I succeed in fixing things? -- Valjean (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Kolma8, would you mind placing your preferred version here? That way it will be easy to compare the two versions. -- Valjean (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph

The first paragraph is factually incorrect on many points:

"Over a period of several months, starting in August 2015, and before U.S. intelligence agencies started any investigations, they began to receive alarming reports from eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) describing overheard conversations between known Russian agents and Trump campaign members. The conversations "formed a suspicious pattern", and while their nature is known by intelligence agencies, it has not been revealed to the public."

The second Guardian article largely rely on Steele investigations and sources, that largely discredited as we all know. But we can use it of course.

Now...

1.

"eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland)".

Where is the "eight" came from? Article talks about "a number of western agencies" and later talks that Germany, Estonia, Poland, and Australia and --maybe-- the Dutch and the French spy agency were contributing to the aforementioned intelligence. Plus GCHQ. That is four countries and three agencies from another three countries. 4+3=7.

2.

"describing overheard conversations between known Russian agents and Trump campaign members."

Guardian reports:

"GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said."

...and later in the article... "US agencies began picking up conversations in which Russians were discussing contacts with Trump associates".

"Figures"..."inner circle"..."associates" is a bit different than "campaign members."

The first article does not mention any "overheard conversations."

The second article states that "in late 2015 the British eavesdropping agency, GCHQ, was carrying out standard “collection” against Moscow targets. These were known Kremlin operatives already on the grid. Nothing unusual here – except that the Russians were talking to people associated with Trump. The precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public, but according to sources in the US and the UK, they formed a suspicious pattern. "

While reading the first sentence it implies that "eight" agencies reported "overheard conversations" not one. This is a pure fiction and cannot be concluded from neither article.

So, the entire paragraph is utterly misleading and factually not correct to say lightly. Kolma8 (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with the first paragraph is not solved. Kolma8 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have reworked it to satisfy your objections. I hope it's better. -- Valjean (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Now to the second paragraph:

"Then, in April 2016, the BBC reported that the CIA director received an alleged tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign". The Dutch also reported how they watched a group of Russians hacking the DNC."

How is the second sentence related to this article?

It is not related to what the BBC has reported at all. Kolma8 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's related to the section topic, but not to this article, so it should be removed, UNLESS it's related to the overheard conversations. -- Valjean (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have read that article again and don't see how it's relevant to this article, so I'll remove that sentence. -- Valjean (talk)

There is now just one sentence in the second paragraph, and I have read that article. While "a joint taskforce, which includes the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign." is interesting, the sentence we use isn't really relevant here, so I'm removing it as well. -- Valjean (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Third paragraph

Now to the third paragraph...

"The New York Times also reported that British and Dutch agencies had evidence of more secret meetings between Trump campaign members and Russian officials in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries, and that U.S. intelligence had overheard Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, talking about contacts with Trump associates. Some Russian officials were arguing about how much to interfere in the election. Then cyber attacks on state electoral systems led the Obama administration to directly accuse the Russians of interfering."

First, I am not sure why my "In March 2017," in the beginning was removed.

2.

Article reports that "American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials ... and associates of President-elect Trump"

and then "Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates."

and then "American intelligence began picking up conversations in which Russian officials were discussing contacts with Trump associates, and European allies were starting to pass along information about people close to Mr. Trump meeting with Russians in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries."

So, nowhere it is being claimed that "Trump campaign members" have participated.

Also, nowhere it mentioned "more secret meetings". The word secret must go. More too. Especially when it is being claimed that "British and Dutch agencies had evidence of more secret meetings." The article just mentioned that they "provided information." There is a difference legally speaking. And since the NYT's article does not mention the time frame of the meetings. The first and third paragraph might be talking about the same meetings. Or maybe not. We just don't know.

Lastly, by putting to NYTs points in once sentences it reads as the same Russian officials were meeting with Trump people and and talking about contacts with them. Kolma8 (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging/soliciting a few contributors who were interested in the article in the past, hopefully without riling them... @Atsme:, @PackMecEng:, @Mr Ernie: Kolma8 (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a very selective group of editors you're pinging there, Kolma8. Please be aware of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the date. It just disappeared with the wholesale revert. -- Valjean (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, also done with this. I removed "secret", although they obviously were secret meetings (only discovered by electronic eavesdropping), and Trump and his associates always denied any such meetings, so they kept them secret by lying about the meetings. -- Valjean (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Misinformation

This has been debunked by John Durham. This article is misinformation and should be taken down. 73.160.137.8 (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources say that? You should read the article before saying such things. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Steele Dossier.

Information on the Steele Dossier is incorrect. It is a not largely unfounded. 2600:1700:7B0:F40:C468:F912:B928:F84A (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Slow down. Unverified/unsubstantiated does not mean untrue, just lacking public proof. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we unpack this assertion?

We currently say 'several allied foreign intelligence agencies began reporting secret contacts between Trump campaigners and known or suspected Russian agents in multiple European cities". This sentence is vague because it mixes things of heterogeneous categories. What is a contact? Why is it called secret instead of private? Also, by throwing the 'known or suspected spies' together we mix up the original text that had alleged that some Trump associate had a link with a person who is either a known or a suspected spy, vs the implied meaning of several links made with different people, some of who are known spies, and others who are suspected spies. Forich (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Because that is what RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Those words are referring to content here: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies#2015–2016 foreign surveillance of Russian targets. You'll find more details there. The Trump campaign denied/lied about all such contacts, even though they were caught on tape speaking with known spies (not just "officials") that were under constant observation by foreign allied intelligence agencies. Precise details have never been released by intelligence agencies as this would ruin their efforts.

We don't know how early this actually began, but it was picked up in 2015. Now let's work backward. In early 2014 Russian intelligence began hacking American political targets and the DNC. Already in November 2013, at the Miss Universe contest in Moscow, Trump discussed his planned candidacy. (You didn't know he was planning it already then? No one else, but the Russians, did either!) We know because his hostess at the contest tweeted this in January 2014. Her tweet is mentioned on page 396 of the Mueller report. Several of her tweets are mentioned in the Mueller report. She and her (now former) husband (Artem Klyushin) are mentioned in the Mueller report, and he is likely associated with Russian intel and its social media campaigns to interfere in American elections. He has followed me on Twitter.

Here's a good article about her tweet and its meaning.

So Trump and the Russians have been planning and working together for a long time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ping Forich

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

This conspiracy theory has been disproven already, and the FBI has been caught, And they have admitted that they falsified documents to try to incriminate trump. 108.188.101.70 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Heart ^(talk) 02:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)