Onetwothreeip (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Onetwothreeip (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 361: | Line 361: | ||
:::Relevancy has nothing to do with the scope of the article. Clearly the [[Russian Federation]] is very relevant to this article, but we're not including everything there is about Russia. Again, if editors find it important that Wikipedia documents Trump's connections with Russian entities, that can form a separate article which would certainly have some overlap with this article. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 01:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
:::Relevancy has nothing to do with the scope of the article. Clearly the [[Russian Federation]] is very relevant to this article, but we're not including everything there is about Russia. Again, if editors find it important that Wikipedia documents Trump's connections with Russian entities, that can form a separate article which would certainly have some overlap with this article. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 01:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::This is a timeline of events, not a list of countries. If RS are saying that an ''event'' X in Russian Federation (for example, creation of [[Internet Research Agency]]) was relevant to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, then yes, it should be included. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
::::This is a timeline of events, not a list of countries. If RS are saying that an ''event'' X in Russian Federation (for example, creation of [[Internet Research Agency]]) was relevant to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, then yes, it should be included. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::By that logic the creation of [[Russia]] and [[United States]] would be included in this article, or the birth of [[Donald Trump]] and [[Vladimir Putin]], or the existence of [[Russian people]], or even [[elections]] themselves. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 01:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:51, 4 May 2019
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2000
what does this edit [1] have to do with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
- @AmYisroelChai: your question is very open-ended. How much have you read of this article (including its references) and the other timelines? Did you read the lede? This article and the continued timelines are not just dates of when cyber-techniques were/are applied. For example, the book Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President would be a useful introduction. Hettena's book is quite informative. This topic is rather epic, and more far-reaching than one might first suspect. Also, you might find using the Template:Diff helpful to avoid clutter. X1\ (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- the lede states "This is a timeline of major events related to election interference that Russia conducted against the U.S. 2016 elections. It also includes major events related to investigations into suspected inappropriate links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials.[1] Those investigations continued in 2017, 2018, and 2019." A 2000 withdrawal from seeking the reform party nomination has nothing to with that. unless you actually explain how it is relevant to this page remove it. עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- @AmYisroelChai:@X1\: I agree that it is relevant and belongs here, but I also agree that the relevance is not obvious and needs more contextual details. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Websurfer2: thank you for jumping-in. I agree the relevance is not obvious and could use more contextual details, but what to add without speculation and tangents? My attempt was to be at bit Wikipedia:ASTONISHME with an eye on streamlining, if possible. My bold addition of the item below speaks to Trump's long presidential aspirations (along with his long involvement with Russia). As has been pointed out in RSs and by others, Trump seemed to show these aspirations after Ivanka and Donald's trip to the СССР.
2000 February 14: Trump withdraws from his attempt to get the Reform Party nomination for the 2000 United States presidential election
- I reverted JFG's removal, as there was another two items (section below) tangled with this which I couldn't Undo separately (and JFG didn't come here to discuss either). X1\ (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again, the onus is on you to obtain consensus for inserting this line, and you should self-revert until such consensus is manifest. Can you exhibit a source that connects Trump's aborted 2000 campaign with Russian interference in 2016? Or with Russia in general? — JFG talk 00:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JFG: As you can read above, Websurfer2 agreed. What I perceive as your facetiousness is not helpful to the Discussion process, and can be interpreted as Incivility.
- Since I appear to be be having lag issues, and as not to be misinterpreted, I am going to do some troubleshooting here. Then, I may continue if all goes well. X1\ (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the revert. Now let's hear from other editors. So far, two people want to mention the 2000 campaign, and two do not. It would be helpful if the pro-2000 editors could exhibit a source making the connection with the 2016 Russian interference. — JFG talk 00:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Websurfer2:@AmYisroelChai: care to comment? I've must leave soon, and I have lag issues. I'll jump back into the discussion when time permits. X1\ (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- AmYisroelChai appears uninterested anymore, and has only made 6 edits on this article. Websurfer2 has already made their opinion clear. I have stated just some of the reasons why this item is useful to the Readers of this article. Your move @JFG: Given the context of this article, and its Talk, how is it not related? Saying, in effect, "I don't like it" is not enough, nor is "I don't get it". X1\ (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @X1\: Why " data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:X1%5C">JFG talk 22:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JFG: This page could be a starting place, kept in context.[1] It has been in the article for some time now, nothing new; and as you say you "have read the sources", so a reminder. I'd be happy to add [1]: 75 to the item in discussion, for clarity in the article. @Websurfer2: would that be enough "contextual detail" for you? I am sure there are more refs, potentially already in the article, too. I am hesitant to include more prose at this time. The article is already getting heavy in size. I would have done more sooner, but I have continued to be distracted by local issues here. X1\ (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- @X1\: I think a blanket entry a few sentences long about Trump's 2000 presidential run is appropriate. It shows that Trump is not the political novice that he pretends to be. In terms of size, the article is at 388,799 bytes with 596 citations. Based upon the 2016–2018 article split, there is still enough space for at least another 250,000 bytes and over 300 citations. Websurfer2 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Websurfer2: From that page's (p.75) paragraph, there is:
but he could not rule out another bid for the presidency.[2] and that he was then still Democrat-friendly, stumping for universal healthcare, wanting Oprah Winfrey for his V.P.. Personally, I feel losing to the Pat Buchanan campaign who gained support among white nationalists, with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's endorsement, is significant. It shows Trump not only was not the political novice (for 2016), but over time adapted new tactics as he "needed more" to put him over the top. Also, thank you for the article size update. X1\ (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)After his withdrawal, Trump wrote in an op-ed that America wasn't ready for yet for a "straight-talking business-man."
- Added. Maybe discuss adding details later, kept bland for now. @Websurfer2: I'm considering un-hatting these "Consensus: Keep"s after these are Archived, to make them easier to page search. X1\ (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is the new version:
- @Websurfer2: From that page's (p.75) paragraph, there is:
- @X1\: I think a blanket entry a few sentences long about Trump's 2000 presidential run is appropriate. It shows that Trump is not the political novice that he pretends to be. In terms of size, the article is at 388,799 bytes with 596 citations. Based upon the 2016–2018 article split, there is still enough space for at least another 250,000 bytes and over 300 citations. Websurfer2 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG: This page could be a starting place, kept in context.[1] It has been in the article for some time now, nothing new; and as you say you "have read the sources", so a reminder. I'd be happy to add [1]: 75 to the item in discussion, for clarity in the article. @Websurfer2: would that be enough "contextual detail" for you? I am sure there are more refs, potentially already in the article, too. I am hesitant to include more prose at this time. The article is already getting heavy in size. I would have done more sooner, but I have continued to be distracted by local issues here. X1\ (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- @X1\: Why " data-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:X1%5C">JFG talk 22:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the revert. Now let's hear from other editors. So far, two people want to mention the 2000 campaign, and two do not. It would be helpful if the pro-2000 editors could exhibit a source making the connection with the 2016 Russian interference. — JFG talk 00:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again, the onus is on you to obtain consensus for inserting this line, and you should self-revert until such consensus is manifest. Can you exhibit a source that connects Trump's aborted 2000 campaign with Russian interference in 2016? Or with Russia in general? — JFG talk 00:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
2000 February 14: Trump withdraws from his attempt to get the Reform Party nomination for the 2000 United States presidential election,[1]: 75 but writes he could not rule out another bid for the presidency.[3]
- X1\ (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @X1\: I don't have access to Seth Hettena's book. Could you kindly quote what he says on page 75 that establishes a connection between Russia and Trump's 2000 presidential bid? — JFG talk 09:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG: so we are not to trust what you say, since you stated
I have read the sources and made a reasoned case for removing this information.
. X1\ (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC) - @JFG: Am I assuming correctly that you didn't read Seth Abramson's Proof of Collusion: How Trump Betrayed America either (as with Seth Hettena's Trump / Russia: A Definitive History); since you altered the content of the the summary while simultaneously asking "Need exact quote" (ES) ? Altering content here without following the source is another example of disruptive behavior, or even vandalism. X1\ (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG: so we are not to trust what you say, since you stated
- @X1\: I don't have access to Seth Hettena's book. Could you kindly quote what he says on page 75 that establishes a connection between Russia and Trump's 2000 presidential bid? — JFG talk 09:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- X1\ (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are referring to another thread, in which you accused me of being "too lazy" to read the sources. I had indeed read all sources that I could, i.e. the 4 out of 5 sources that were readily accessible online. I'm happy to admit that I did not buy or read the fifth source, a book by Seth Hettena, but frankly if that's the only one supporting your content, why did you bother quoting four others that do not support it? Now, in this thread, please quote us the relevant passage from page 75 which, according to your citation, should establish a connection between Russia and Trump's 2000 presidential bid. — JFG talk 23:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG: another mis-characterization, as I pointed out earlier (01:46, 6 November 2018), it was "if" (see
Read the long-established RSs in these articles, and if you are too lazy to do that you are only here to disrupt this article.
). There is no use for crocodile tears here. I gave you the benefit of doubt for lacking of effort instead of being deceptive. My mistake. Now, let's be constructive and improve the article, can we? X1\ (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG: another mis-characterization, as I pointed out earlier (01:46, 6 November 2018), it was "if" (see
- You are referring to another thread, in which you accused me of being "too lazy" to read the sources. I had indeed read all sources that I could, i.e. the 4 out of 5 sources that were readily accessible online. I'm happy to admit that I did not buy or read the fifth source, a book by Seth Hettena, but frankly if that's the only one supporting your content, why did you bother quoting four others that do not support it? Now, in this thread, please quote us the relevant passage from page 75 which, according to your citation, should establish a connection between Russia and Trump's 2000 presidential bid. — JFG talk 23:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have added number to the revised item. X1\ (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: To-date there have been four Donald Trump presidential campaigns: 2000, 2012, 2016, and the current 2020. X1\ (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c Hettena, Seth (May 2018). Trump / Russia: A Definitive History. Melville House. ISBN 978-1612197395.: 75
- ^ Donald J. Trump (February 19, 2000). "What I Saw at the Revolution". NYTimes.com. Retrieved 3 January 2019.
- ^ Donald J. Trump (February 19, 2000). "What I Saw at the Revolution". NYTimes.com. Retrieved January 3, 2019.
National Enquirer, Pecker, Cohen, and Trump
Relevant individuals and organizations: David Pecker, Chairman and CEO of American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer
August 2015: David Pecker, the chairman of American Media, Inc. (AMI), meets with Cohen and Trump.[1] He offers "to help deal with negative stories about that presidential candidate’s relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they [can] be purchased and their publication avoided." In September 2018, AMI enters into a non-prosecution agreement for cooperation with the investigation into such activities by the Southern District of New York (SDNY).[2]
2015 August 5: AMI pays Karen McDougal $150,000 for the "limited life rights" for her story about her relationship with Trump. The payment is made with the understanding from Cohen that AMI will be "substantially reimbursed" by Trump. In August 2018, Cohen pleads guilty to a campaign finance violation for the payment. In September 2018, AMI enters into a non-prosecution agreement in which it admits the purpose of the payment was "to suppress the model’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."[2]
2016 Late August–Early September: Cohen tells David Pecker he wants to buy the rights to the suppressed story about McDougal's relationship with Trump.[2]
See also: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, and 2017–18 United States political sexual scandals
@AmYisroelChai: "still nothing to do with the topic of this page take it to the talk page", @Websurfer2: "These items are part of the Mueller investigation for violating campaign finance laws", @JFG: "The playmate affair is not related to Russia", @Rangerkid51:, @AlsoWukai: additional comments, besides ES? X1\ (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @AmYisroelChai: @JFG:@X1\: This looks like another set of drive-by deletions. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- My basic argument for keeping these items is that deliberate campaign finance violations by Trump are a form of election manipulation, which should be fair game for inclusion in this page because it is 1) Trump and 2) alleged illegal activity aimed at changing the outcome of the 2016 election. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Where does Russia fit in? PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm wondering the same thing. Not all forms of campaign interference and campaign finance improprieties are connected to Russia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: RSs show Mueller and other investigators are looking into Russian money going to Trump, a long history with many channels. Follow the money. X1\ (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cohen created shell companies where money could be "donated" and used for various reasons by Trump. X1\ (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh what a tangled web we weave ... X1\ (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah I get that and it could have to do with Mueller in some form or fashion but not everything to do with Mueller is Russian interference in the 2016 election. At worst this looks like a campaign finance issue that is completely domestic and without any outside powers influence or help. PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- The only connection point is that the playmate affair may be investigated by Mueller, and Mueller is in charge of investigating Russian influence on the election. However there has been to my knowledge no allegation that McDougal, Pecker, or the Enquirer are in any way connected with the Russia collusion story. Therefore it's off topic here. — JFG talk 23:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- The connections aren't about Mueller, they're about Trump and "Russia". X1\ (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- International money effecting a domestic election campaign is not "domestic". X1\ (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is there an allegation somewhere that the payment by AMI/Pecker to buy and bury McDougal's story involved "international money"??? Is the National Enquirer international now? — JFG talk 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah I get that and it could have to do with Mueller in some form or fashion but not everything to do with Mueller is Russian interference in the 2016 election. At worst this looks like a campaign finance issue that is completely domestic and without any outside powers influence or help. PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Where does Russia fit in? PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that these items fall under this scope delineated in the lede: "It also includes major events related to investigations into suspected inappropriate links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials." These items were revealed by those investigations. Websurfer2 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's undue and politically-motivated scope creep. The lead wording should be amended to conform to "Trump and Russia" affairs (which in itself is some considerable scope creep from the original goal of the article: documenting Russian interference and investigation thereof). — JFG talk 07:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @JFG: You are pushing your own agenda by insisting on following a narrow scope definition that has been rejected more than once by consensus among editors. Your current wholesale deletion storm is risking a ban for deliberate disrtuption. Websurfer2 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This page is censoring how Russia recruited Trump for years and years. No other US candidate would fall for that. Nothing is an accident with KGB & Putins circle. Stop erasing the story everybody's read it everywhere but on this page its erased? Why?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2019
- I have added connected "See also" items to "talk quote block" section. X1\ (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have added numbers to each item. X1\ (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Follow-up on sale.[3][4][5] X1\ (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Winter, Tom (December 13, 2018). "Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher". NBC News. Retrieved December 13, 2018.
- ^ a b c Voreacos, David; Dolmetsch, Chris; Smith, Gerry (December 12, 2018). "Tabloid Company's Admission Shows New Peril for Trump's Circle". Bloomberg LP. Retrieved December 12, 2018.
- ^ Edmund Lee (18 April 2019). "National Enquirer to Be Sold to James Cohen, Heir to Hudson News Founder". NYTimes.com. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
- ^ Lukas I. Alpert (18 April 2019). "National Enquirer to Be Sold for $100 Million to Ex-Newsstand Mogul; Former head of Hudson News to buy supermarket tabloid and sister publications from American Media". WSJ.com. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
- ^ Tim Dickinson (12 April 2019). "'National Enquirer' Sale: Who Gets the Trove of Trump's Darkest Secrets?; The tabloid infamous for spiking bad news about Trump could sell its archive of unpublished stories about the president". RollingStone.com. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
Consolidated discussion
1984: In the new Trump Tower, Trump meets with David Bogatin, a Russian mobster and close ally of Semion Mogilevich who buys five condos from Trump at that meeting that are later seized by the government for being used to launder money for the Russian mob.[1][2][3]
1986: Soviet Ambassador Yuri Dubinin invites Trump on all-expenses-paid trip to the Soviet Union.[4][5]
1987 March: Three years after attending the closing with Trump, Bogatin pleads guilty to taking part in a massive gasoline-bootlegging scheme with Russian mobsters. Bogatin flees the country; the government seizes his five condos at Trump Tower, saying that he had purchased them to "launder money, to shelter and hide assets."[6]
1987 July: Trump and his wife Ivana, who speaks Russian,[7] make their first visit to the Soviet Union (which included the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR)).[8][9][10][11][2]: 13 They scout potential construction sites for a Trump Tower Moscow.[10][11]
1987 September 1: Trump spends $94,801 on full-page ads in the Boston Globe, Washington Post, and New York Times, calling on NATO countries and other allies, such as Japan, to pay for their protection.[12][13][14][2]: 14
1987 October 22: In what is considered as Trump's first campaign speech, Trump delivers a message about the United States in New Hampshire during a high-profile trip.[15][16]
Relevant individuals and organizations: John R. Bolton, National Security Advisor (from April 2018)
2013 December 10: John Bolton promotes gun rights in Russia in a video made for Butina's "Right to Bear Arms " organization.[17][18]
Building Consolidated discussion, combining 1987 and Bogatin story threads; updated "full-page ads" item, numbered items, just included for context items in grey (2 & 4). I plan to wlink to previous discussions threads in Archive2 for easy reference when time premits (WIP) soon, and Archive old/separate discussion threads. X1\ (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
In Google Books, a significant number of pages of Trump / Russia: A Definitive History are free to view online, including on Bogatin. Bogatin is on pages 6-13, 16, 18-21, 63, and 164 per the book's Index (the body of the the book is 224 pages). X1\ (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
For previous discussion, see "vision of "Trump Tower Moscow" starting in 1987" thread and "Trump's new found interest in international politics after their time to the Soviet Union" thread. X1\ (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
And for other previous discussion, see Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 2#1987. X1\ (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
And for more previous discussion, see Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 3#Bogatin story. X1\ (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Added "Right to Bear Arms " to item for clarity. X1\ (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
These items are gaining significance for here, &/or a new article will needed create per new U.S. House interest in probe of President Trump and Russia regarding money laundering in particular. Currently three committees are already involved: United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, United States House Committee on Financial Services, and United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs.[19] X1\ (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Right. And these affairs are getting less and less connected to Russian election interference. Start another article. — JFG talk 11:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Probably better to rename this article and start a new article about Russian interference in the election. I don't see for example what John Bolton's appearance in a 2013 Russian pro-gun video has to do with the interference in the 2016 election. TFD (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: you appear to be confused. That article, of which you have edited, already exists: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; and Bolton's video is in this Timeline. X1\ (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, now I am confused. Yes I edited this article two years ago and in fact am now posting on its talk page. My suggestion was that we have a separate article about Russian interference in the election and rename this article. Stuff about for example John Bolton appearing in a Russian pro-gun video before Trump decided to run for president is not an example of Russian interference in the election, considering that Bolton was not part of the Trump campaign. However, it may be part of an article that shows connections between members of the Trump administration and Russia. Having renamed this article, we could then have one that concentrates on how Russia actually interfered in the election, for example by using a Moscow troll farm to post ads on facebook. TFD (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: check the link again; that article (you edited 05:15, 17 April 2017) was started 10 December 2016 and this article was created 23 May 2017. And yes you are correct, the Butina/ NRA/Bolton /Trump item shows an example of Russian connections to the U.S. election system; infiltration and then interference. X1\ (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I tend to forget edits after two or three years. What I meant was that there are two topics: the relationship between Trump officials and Russians and Russians intervention in the election. While I understand the view that facebook ads posted by Russians swung the election, it is unclear how Bolton's participation in a pro-gun video had any relevance. And no sources say it did. TFD (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed Bolton's pro-gun speech in 2013 is far removed from any Russian election interference in 2016. Perhaps a separate timeline should be created for the NRA–Russia–Butina sub-plot, which frankly only confuses readers here. Will remove Bolton now. — JFG talk 10:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- The Bolton item shows that he is connected to Butina, who was part of the Russian influence campaign on the NRA, which is being investigated for possibly using Russian money in the 2016 election.Websurfer2 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- New article on Bolton[20] yet to read maybe useful. X1\ (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I copied from items from #2013 John R. Bolton, Trump's National Security Advisor, video for admitted Russian agent Maria Butina's organization that are have been discussed here. X1\ (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I tend to forget edits after two or three years. What I meant was that there are two topics: the relationship between Trump officials and Russians and Russians intervention in the election. While I understand the view that facebook ads posted by Russians swung the election, it is unclear how Bolton's participation in a pro-gun video had any relevance. And no sources say it did. TFD (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: check the link again; that article (you edited 05:15, 17 April 2017) was started 10 December 2016 and this article was created 23 May 2017. And yes you are correct, the Butina/ NRA/Bolton /Trump item shows an example of Russian connections to the U.S. election system; infiltration and then interference. X1\ (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, now I am confused. Yes I edited this article two years ago and in fact am now posting on its talk page. My suggestion was that we have a separate article about Russian interference in the election and rename this article. Stuff about for example John Bolton appearing in a Russian pro-gun video before Trump decided to run for president is not an example of Russian interference in the election, considering that Bolton was not part of the Trump campaign. However, it may be part of an article that shows connections between members of the Trump administration and Russia. Having renamed this article, we could then have one that concentrates on how Russia actually interfered in the election, for example by using a Moscow troll farm to post ads on facebook. TFD (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: you appear to be confused. That article, of which you have edited, already exists: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; and Bolton's video is in this Timeline. X1\ (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Probably better to rename this article and start a new article about Russian interference in the election. I don't see for example what John Bolton's appearance in a 2013 Russian pro-gun video has to do with the interference in the 2016 election. TFD (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Sean Illing (Sep 12, 2018). "Trump's ties to the Russian mafia go back 3 decades: Journalist Craig Unger talks Russia, Trump, and "one of the greatest intelligence operations in history."". Vox.com. Retrieved 30 October 2018.
- ^ a b c Hettena, Seth (May 2018). Trump / Russia: A Definitive History. Melville House. p. 11. ISBN 978-1612197395.
- ^ Craig Unger (July 13, 2017). "Trump's Russian Laundromat: How to use Trump Tower and other luxury high-rises to clean dirty money, run an international crime syndicate, and propel a failed real estate developer into the White House". The New Republic. Retrieved 30 October 2018.
- ^ Abbie VanSickle (March 21, 2017). "Confused by Trump's Russia Ties? This timeline breaks it down for you". Medium.com. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
- ^ "Trump's Russian connections; Donald Trump's ties to Russia are back under the spotlight after the CIA concluded that Moscow had interfered in November's presidential election to help the Republican candidate win". FT.com. December 13, 2016. Archived from the original on February 23, 2018. Retrieved July 23, 2018 – via Internet Archive.
...the tycoon recalled in his book Trump: The Art of the Deal. Trump flew to Moscow at Dubinin's invitation to discuss the hotel project with the Soviet tourism agency.
{{cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
(help) - ^ Mark A. Uhlig (March 12, 1987). "Brooklyn fuel distributor pleads guilty in tax plot". NYTimes.com. Retrieved 30 October 2018.
- ^ Bonfiglio, Chontelle (November 9, 2016). "President Donald Trump and his Multilingual Family". bilingualkidspot.com. Retrieved January 21, 2019.
- ^ Abbie VanSickle (March 21, 2017). "Confused by Trump's Russia Ties? This timeline breaks it down for you". Medium.com. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
July 3, 1987; Trump's first trip to Soviet Union. Trump traveled to the Soviet Union with his then-wife Ivana Zelnickova Winklmayr, a Czech model, to explore a hotel deal.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|quote=
- ^ Luke Harding (November 19, 2017). "The Hidden History of Trump's First Trip to Moscow; In 1987, a young real estate developer traveled to the Soviet Union. The KGB almost certainly made the trip happen". Politico.com. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
- ^ a b Max Kutner (August 28, 2017). "Trump Considered Business With the Russian Government in 1987, and Newsweek Met Him in Moscow". Newsweek.com. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
- ^ a b Twohey, Megan; Eder, Steve (January 16, 2017). "For Trump, Three Decades of Chasing Deals in Russia". The New York Times. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
- ^ Oreskes, Michael (September 2, 1987). "Trump Gives a Vague Hint of Candidacy". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 February 2019.
- ^ John Shanahan (September 2, 1987). "Trump: U.S. Should Stop Paying To Defend Countries that Can Protect Selves". Associated Press. Retrieved 2 February 2019.
- ^ James S. Henry (December 19, 2016). "The Curious World of Donald Trump's Private Russian Connections". The American Interest. Retrieved 2 February 2019.
- ^ Michael Kruse (February 5, 2016). "The True Story of Donald Trump's First Campaign Speech — in 1987: Age 41, he stepped out of a helicopter in New Hampshire and delivered a rousing message of total American failure. Sound familiar?". politico.com. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
- ^ Abramson, Seth (November 13, 2018). Proof of Collusion: How Trump Betrayed America. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1982116088.
It crosses continents and decades and has swept into its vortex more than four hunderd people, millions of pages of financial records, and scores of unanswered questions about the state of our democracy.
: 14 book's Index - ^ "Выступление посла Джона Болтона в день празднования дня российской Конституции" (video). Право на оружие. December 10, 2013. Retrieved July 17, 2018 – via YouTube.
- ^ Bergengruen, Vera (July 16, 2018). "Accused Russian Agent Used The NRA And The National Prayer Breakfast To Influence US Policy, Charges Say". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
- ^ Mike Allen (February 13, 2019). "House Democrats plan vast Russia probe". Axios.com. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
- ^ Wood, Graeme. "Will John Bolton Bring on Armageddon—Or Stave It Off?". The Atlantic (April 2019). Retrieved 28 March 2019.
2013 John R. Bolton, Trump's National Security Advisor, video for admitted Russian agent Maria Butina's organization
Relevant individuals and organizations: John R. Bolton, National Security Advisor (from April 2018)
2013 December 10: John Bolton promotes gun rights in Russia in a video made for Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" organization.[1][2]
The above was deleted here. X1\ (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I deleted this because it has nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 22:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Bolton did not support Trump during the election and didn't join the administration until 2018. In other words, he had no connection with the election. TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Continue with the discussion thread you previously started at #Consolidated discussion. X1\ (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bolton did not support Trump during the election and didn't join the administration until 2018. In other words, he had no connection with the election. TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Выступление посла Джона Болтона в день празднования дня российской Конституции" (video). Право на оружие. December 10, 2013. Retrieved July 17, 2018 – via YouTube.
- ^ Bergengruen, Vera (July 16, 2018). "Accused Russian Agent Used The NRA And The National Prayer Breakfast To Influence US Policy, Charges Say". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
2014/2015/2016 Cambridge Analytica, Bannon, Mercers, Nix, Giuliani, Laurence Levy, Arron Banks, Brexit, Wigmore, Farage, Leave.EU
2014 July 22: Laurence Levy, a lawyer with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, advises Rebekah Mercer, Steve Bannon, and Alexander Nix on the legality of their company, Cambridge Analytica, being involved in U.S. elections. He advises that Nix and any foreign nationals without a green card working for the company not be involved in any decisions about work the company performs for any clients related to U.S. elections. He further advises Nix to recuse himself from any involvement with the company's U.S. election work because he is not a U.S. citizen.[1][2]
2015 October 24: Arron Banks sends an email to Steve Bannon and others to request help from Cambridge Analytica, where Bannon is a VP, with fundraising in the U.S. for the Leave.EU campaign. Foreign contributions to British political campaigns are illegal. Banks comes under criminal investigation in 2018 in part over questions about Leave.EU's funding sources.[3]
2015 November 17: Wigmore, Banks, and Cambridge Analytica executive Brittany Kaiser launch the Leave.EU campaign.[4][5]
2016 July 21: Wigmore and Farage encounter staffers for Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant at the bar in the Hilton Hotel. A staffer invites Wigmore and Farage to Mississippi.[6]
These were deleted here (called "off topic") and here (with ES of "Cut down excess mentions of Cambridge Analytica that are off topic"). X1\ (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Right. How is a British political campaign related to Russian interference in the U.S: election? — JFG talk 22:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've already place some of these in Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum. X1\ (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum for attempted deletion of Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum information after copied/transferred there. X1\ (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Levy, Laurence (July 22, 2014). "Participation in US Elections" (PDF). Bracewell & Giuliani LLP. Retrieved March 23, 2018 – via MSNBC.
- ^ Schecter, Anna R. (March 23, 2018). "Wylie: Foreigners worked for Cambridge Analytica on NC Senate campaign". NBC News. Retrieved 2018-03-23.
- ^ Townsend, Mark; Cadwalladr, Carole (November 17, 2018). "Emails reveal Arron Banks' links to Steve Bannon in quest for campaign cash". The Guardian. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
- ^ Cadwalladr, Carole; Jukes, Peter (July 8, 2018). "Revealed: Leave.EU campaign met Russian officials as many as 11 times". Retrieved July 11, 2018.
- ^ Cadwalladr, Carole; Jukes, Peter (June 9, 2018). "Arron Banks 'met Russian officials multiple times before Brexit vote'". The Guardian. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
- ^ Roig-Franzia, Manuel; Helderman, Rosalind S.; Booth, WIlliam; Hamburger, Tom; Timberg, Craig; Crites, Alice; Dawsey, Josh; Tate, Julie; Adam, Karla (June 28, 2018). "How the 'Bad Boys of Brexit' forged ties with Russia and the Trump campaign – and came under investigators' scrutiny". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 3, 2018.
Dec 2018
A report of 16 persons with contacts during the transition made in December 2018 likely should not be included on this page, and should be removed. Since there is no basis to place it on January 19, I moved it to November - January.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
In December 2018, it is reported at least 16 Trump associates interacted with Russian nationals during the campaign and transition period, including Papadopoulos, Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Page, Sessions, Gordon, Caputo, Sater, Cohen, Prince, Stone, Ivanka Trump, Trump Jr., Kushner, and Kushner aide Avi Berkowitz.[1][2]
Item is in regards to time before Trump takes office, thus at the last day before last happens, per source. X1\ (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Follow-up on additional persons or organizations involved per Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (only partial, so far). It would appear the number is higher than just 16. X1\ (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Marshall Cohen (December 10, 2018). "At least 16 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during campaign or transition". CNN.com. Retrieved December 10, 2018.
- ^ "Russians interacted with at least 14 Trump associates during the campaign and transition". WashingtonPost.com. December 9, 2018. Retrieved December 10, 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
(help)
Centralized talk page
Per WP:TALKCENT, I think it makes sense to centralize the talk pages for Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017), Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018), and Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) onto this page. The discussions among these pages are all interrelatted and many parts are transcluded to all four pages. See Talk:List of aircraft for an example of a group of articles where this has worked well. - PaulT/C 03:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'd support that change. I can merge the threads from other pages to here if there's consensus. — JFG talk 07:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Psantora: is there a specific reason you want that? It is already messy here, and an editor revived a dead thread after 73 days (for example), so Archiving has been disrupted. The goal would be simplicity and clarity over centralization. X1\ (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Psantora: you might want to see the related Timelines' Talk pages again. There are new items, and edits. X1\ (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that there are new items and edits! ;) I'm not suggesting that there isn't any activity on these pages currently. I understand that there is going to be more activity on this talk page as a result of this centralization, but at least it will all be in one place and be easier to follow (vs. the current situation of trying to track it across multiple pages).
- The page was originally split because of article size concerns; it was literally starting to break the site. Thankfully, on the talk page we don't have that restriction since old threads can be archived.
- The beginning and end sections of each of these pages are all identical (ish) and contain mostly the same content that is transcluded from this main (and original) page. Any discussion for changes to these sections will apply to all the pages and by centralizing the talk pages it would all happen in one place. Furthermore, this list ought to be consistent across all the pages and the best way to achieve this is by combining the talk pages.
- As for the reviving of a dead thread, there isn't much that you can do about a rogue editor not following accepted convention for discussions on talk pages. Archived discussions should be kept archived and that would apply to these talk pages regardless of centralization. I'm sure there are other pros that I'm forgetting as well as cons that I'm overlooking, but I think the pros clearly outweigh the cons here. - PaulT/C 02:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Psantora: relative to the List of aircraft article which are many and simple, these Timeline articles are few and complex. This article was spun-off (23 May 2017) from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (created 10 December 2016). I was part of pushing to split this article. See Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018), as there is a high proportion of disruptive trolls on these article, for a long time; not just "rogue editors". See #Bogatin story with its drive-by trolls. The Internet Research Agency and its fellow travelers are not "rogue editors". My concern is centralization could be another opportunity for disruption. I would greatly welcome if you are able to spend time helping defend these Timelines against trolls. I don't want you to push some change of nominal help and leave a mess. X1\ (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm either not sure I fully understand your concern, or I think it is at least as likely for centralizing to be a net positive with regard to dealing with disruption. I think having a centralized location where all issues related to this timeline as well as the 2017, 2018, and 2019 continuations of it would make it easier to discuss any disruption issues. Right now you have to check and update multiple talk pages if/when there are problems on each page. After centralizing the talk pages, issues raised here would be seen by everyone who has this 2016 page on their watchlist.As an examlple, look at the comparatively stable (not really) 2017 page. This page was created and mostly completed after the timeline was split in May 2018. It has fewer than 500 edits and currently very few talk page entries. 2018 has over 1000 edits with more talk page entries but not an overwhelming amount. 2019, while still early in the year, has over 250 and is on track to have more than 2018 fairly soon with a small number of talk page entries. Most of the talk page discussions happened here before the pages were split in 2018. It is easy for discussions to get lost on the other pages and if there are issues that keep coming up over and over again it will be easier to keep things straight and reliably point to older precedent if all the archives are in one place as well.How does having separate talk pages make it harder to cause disruption? It certainly makes it harder to deal with it. - PaulT/C 23:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Psantora: relative to the List of aircraft article which are many and simple, these Timeline articles are few and complex. This article was spun-off (23 May 2017) from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (created 10 December 2016). I was part of pushing to split this article. See Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018), as there is a high proportion of disruptive trolls on these article, for a long time; not just "rogue editors". See #Bogatin story with its drive-by trolls. The Internet Research Agency and its fellow travelers are not "rogue editors". My concern is centralization could be another opportunity for disruption. I would greatly welcome if you are able to spend time helping defend these Timelines against trolls. I don't want you to push some change of nominal help and leave a mess. X1\ (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- From WP:TALKCENT:
- If consensus is gained, then:
- Archive current discussions on all the talk pages to be centralized; see Help:Archiving a talk page
- Check each talk page for subpages. These are usually archived discussions, but other subpages are sometimes created, such as drafts or reviews. See Wikipedia:Subpages#Finding subpages.
- On the centralized talk page, list the redirected pages.
{{Central}}
is useful for this. - On the centralized talk page, list all of the archived talk pages.
{{Archive banner}}
is useful for this. - Redirect each talk page to the desired talk page; see Wikipedia:Redirect. It is recommended that an editnotice be created for the redirected talk pages; see Wikipedia:Editnotice.
{{Editnotice central redirected}}
is useful for this. - It is recommended that an editnotice be created for the centralized talk page.
{{Editnotice central}}
is useful for this. - Ensure that involved editors realize that they need to add the centralized talk page to their watchlist.
- I would propose that (1) be skipped in lieu of moving all discussions on those pages here, and then archiving them appropriately from here once they are old enough. Subsequently, (2) and (4) would then be skipped because there are no subpages or archived discussions, which I think is a reason why it makes sense to do this sooner rather than later. - PaulT/C 00:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Websurfer2:, @Cpaaoi:, @Arglebargle79:, @Jasonanaggie:, @BullRangifer:, @Wukai: / @AlsoWukai:, @HandsomeFella:, @Soibangla:, @Nerd271: As top editors at these Timelines, do you have comments of this idea? X1\ (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- I find Psantora (talk · contribs)'s argument very compelling. I agree that the large amount of content transcluded and wikilinked between the pages really makes them a single multi-part article, which was the intent when I split the pages and is reflected in the article naming convention we agreed upon. It occurred to me at the time of the split that it would be convenient to have a single Talk page. @X1\: I share your concerns about trolls, etc., but I think it would be easier to only have to monitor a single Talk page. I vote yes. Websurfer2 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Psantora: Websurfer2 has a vast history of of constructive contributions to this article, and I appreciate their input. X1\ (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think the status quo is fine. Nerd271 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate on that? The activity on these pages has died down a bit but the content on each timeline page still has direct relevance to the others, especially so on this 2016 page. I agree that the status quo currently does work, obviously, but the proposal is intended to improve the status quo. Having a centralized talk page would be easier to keep related discussions together and more easily cite previous discussions if there are recurring issues. Right now this is the only talk page with an archive, but as soon as 2018 or 2019 gets long enough to warrant one it will require searching in multiple places to find a discussion. - PaulT/C 03:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Summary
This is starting to get a little long and stale, so I'm going to provide a very concise summary/tally of where folks stand:
Support !vote
- psantora (as proposer)
- JFG ("support")
- Websurfer2 ("very compelling"/"yes")
Status quo/oppose !vote
I don't think anyone else has given an opinion despite X1\'s helpful pings above. Please feel free to change/update this list as I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I figured this would be a lot easier to read through for whenever this discussion closes. - PaulT/C 04:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Edit summary point - piped links
(N.B. X1\ moved this discussion here from X1\'s Talk page.)
Hi [X1\]. I didn't see a need to bring this up at the relevant talk page since my question isn't about the content in that article per se, but rather the "style for piped [links]" you cited in this edit summary: style for piped is as wikipedia article title, so CAP Ts. I see you made similar changes referencing this edit summary in newer revisions of the article as well. Can you please point out where this style is explained? Thanks. - PaulT/C 07:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Psantora: it is the style throughout the pages and what I have seen on other pages I have edited. Off-hand I don't remember where is it explained (MOS?, but of course there is BEBOLD). Why don't you want to do it that way? It makes it easier to see the pipes when look at the code. X1\ (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that you were citing something specific in the MoS, but if there is not an actual policy or guideline that you can specifically recall I guess it comes down to personal preference and subsequently taking any dispute to the talk page to be hashed out.This is exceedingly trivial so I'm not going to make a fuss, but if there is an actual reference to this in the MoS I wanted to make sure I knew about it going forward. (I checked MOS:PIPE and I didn't see anything referencing this particular case, though there are some very good guidelines there in general. WP:NOPIPE is closer, but still nothing specific.) Furthermore, if there is no reference you
arecould be seen as misrepresenting your personal preference as an accepted style guideline, which probably isn't the best idea. I honestly don't know one way or the other (nor am I suggesting you are doing something wrong) so that is why I asked. If it is just a preference though, I try to only make those kinds of changes as part of a more substantive edit and not just tocorrectchange something so minor.As for my preference of not capitalizing links, having lowercase piped links (where appropriate grammatically) IMHO is easier to read when editing/reviewing the code and there are cases where it makes it functionally easier to edit as well. For example, when using the WP:PIPETRICK[[baseball (ball)|]]
(note the pipe and empty label), it will automatically expand to[[baseball (ball)|baseball]]
(baseball) when saving the page, which is shorter to type than the fully expanded code. If that link were in the middle of a sentence it would need to be lower case and if you had kept the initial capital (per your preference) and typed[[Baseball (ball)|]]
it would expand to[[Baseball (ball)|Baseball]]
(Baseball) instead and require either a subsequent edit to change[[Baseball (ball)|Baseball]]
to[[Baseball (ball)|baseball]]
or fully typing out[[Baseball (ball)|baseball]]
in the first place. It is a minor edge case, but this convienience and keeping consistency with it for other piped links is a reason why I prefer having the initial letter lower case (when it makes gramattical sense) for piped links. - PaulT/C 00:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that you were citing something specific in the MoS, but if there is not an actual policy or guideline that you can specifically recall I guess it comes down to personal preference and subsequently taking any dispute to the talk page to be hashed out.This is exceedingly trivial so I'm not going to make a fuss, but if there is an actual reference to this in the MoS I wanted to make sure I knew about it going forward. (I checked MOS:PIPE and I didn't see anything referencing this particular case, though there are some very good guidelines there in general. WP:NOPIPE is closer, but still nothing specific.) Furthermore, if there is no reference you
This is no justification for this being a Trump smear article
Unless there is something that proves that Trump had involvement with Russia that was related to Russia interfering with the election, it doesn't belong in this article. The other case would be any investigation into such.Phmoreno (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Wikipedia works on verifiability, not proof. If there is content in the article that is not verifiable in reliable sources, or that more recent sources have refuted, then please specify them.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Phmoreno, I see you are continuing to be tendentious, maybe if you still own "Russian small cap stocks" wouldn't that create a conflict-of-interest in your editing? X1\ (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I especially love how the timeline begins in the 80`s.. How exactly did they orchestrate Trump beating at least 12 other Republican candidates to even appear Jawz101 (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
UK/US synergistic interference by Russia
2015 September 26–27: Andy Wigmore meets Alexander Udod during the UKIP annual conference at the Doncaster Racecourse. Udod is a Russian diplomat and suspected Russian intelligence officer who is expelled from the U.K. in 2018 in retaliation for the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. In October, Udod arranges a November lunch for Wigmore, Arron Banks, and the Russian ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko.[1][2][3]
... to Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
24 October 2015 Arron Banks sends an email to Steve Bannon and others to request help from Cambridge Analytica, where Bannon is a VP, with fundraising in the U.S. for the Leave.EU campaign. Foreign contributions to British political campaigns are illegal. Banks comes under criminal investigation in 2018 in part over questions about Leave.EU's funding sources.[4][5]
... already in Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum, see "2014/2015/2016" thread...
6 November 2015, Wigmore and Banks have lunch with Yakovenko at the ambassador's residence in London; they brief him on Brexit. In a June 2018 interview, Wigmore tells The Washington Post his goal for the meeting was to discuss finding a buyer for a banana plantation in Belize.[1][2]
... to Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
17 November 2015, Andy Wigmore, Banks, and Cambridge Analytica executive Brittany Kaiser launch the Leave.EU campaign.[6][7]
... already in Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
Yakovenko introduces Wigmore and Banks to Russian oligarch Siman Povarenkin. In 2018, The Guardian reports that documents related to the meeting suggest Banks was offered business deals.[6]
... while this 17 November 2015 part is moved there.
If all/some of these items become more connected to this page as RSs arise, or I missed something, we can restore them from deletion. X1\ (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum for attempted deletion of Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum information after copied/transferred there. X1\ (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Roig-Franzia, Manuel; Helderman, Rosalind S.; Booth, WIlliam; Hamburger, Tom; Timberg, Craig; Crites, Alice; Dawsey, Josh; Tate, Julie; Adam, Karla (June 28, 2018). "How the 'Bad Boys of Brexit' forged ties with Russia and the Trump campaign – and came under investigators' scrutiny". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 3, 2018.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
BanksWigmoreCultivated20180610
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "BBC Parliament – UKIP Conference". BBC. Retrieved July 3, 2018.
- ^ Townsend, Mark; Cadwalladr, Carole (November 17, 2018). "Emails reveal Arron Banks' links to Steve Bannon in quest for campaign cash". The Guardian. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
- ^ Jane Mayer (November 17, 2018). "New Evidence Emerges of Steve Bannon and Cambridge Analytica's Role in Brexit". NewYorker.com. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
- ^ a b Cadwalladr, Carole; Jukes, Peter (July 8, 2018). "Revealed: Leave.EU campaign met Russian officials as many as 11 times". Retrieved July 11, 2018.
- ^ Cadwalladr, Carole; Jukes, Peter (June 9, 2018). "Arron Banks 'met Russian officials multiple times before Brexit vote'". The Guardian. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
On the "External Links" and "Further Reading" lists
So I replaced one of the items from a website with a rather inappropriate name with coverage by the Associated Press. See here. Please explain if you disagree. @X1\: Nerd271 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, a book by Seth Hettena appears in both the references and the "Further Reading" list. Why the duplication? Nerd271 (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding repeated WhatTheFuckJustHappenedToday.com deletions
- You didn't state in your ES you "replaced" an item.
- Then you made a meaningless ES of "How uncivilized."
- A response with an ES was given
- X1\ (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding Trump / Russia: A Definitive History[1], there is a great deal of related information in this reference book, thus in "Further Reading". It could be used more often as a reference. As this "story", as you have called it unfolds with further RSs coming from many new investigations, I expecting this reference to be increasingly cited along with other newer RSs, also. X1\ (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I replaced it, yes, as can be seen by comparing the edits. I also gave a link above. It is all public; anybody who is skeptical can see for themselves. The link you gave is for your edit, not mine! And yours came later.
- Again, my edit summary was not a joke. I was dead serious. I disagreed with the word choice, so I gave an alternative that is neutral, reliable, up-to-date, and free from profanities, namely the Associated Press. Wikipedia is a commonly used resource. And we do a disservice to our community by selecting poor sources.
- Yes, you gave your reason, and I rejected it. (Scroll to the bottom.)
- That book can be used more times, but your response did not address my question of duplication. If it is one of the citations, why is it in the "Further Reading" list? If someone is skeptical or wants to learn more, all they have to do is to hover their cursor over the in-text citation. What's the point? Nerd271 (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Follow-up item from WtFJHT, example of utility of author's personal (et al. too, see page's Revision history) synthesis, analysis, and synopsis:
Federal prosecutors are pursuing 14 other investigations that were referred by Mueller. Two were disclosed in the redacted report: potential wire fraud and federal employment law violations involving Michael Cohen, and charges against Gregory Craig, the former White House counsel under Obama, who was accused of lying to investigators and concealing work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. The other 12 referrals were redacted because the details could harm continuing investigations.[2][3]
X1\ (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hettena, Seth (May 2018). Trump / Russia: A Definitive History. Melville House Publishing. ISBN 978-1612197395.
- ^ Matt Kiser (April 18, 2019). "Day 819: Inadequate". WhatTheFuckJustHappenedToday.com. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
Updated 4/18/2019 1:57 PM PDT
- ^ Federal, state and Congressional probes still looking into Trump on YouTube ("12" at 6:30 of 8:04) published on April 18, 2019 CBS News
Too much here
This article is including far too much information than would otherwise be useful, and has a particular focus on Donald Trump when the focus of this article should be about Russian government interference in the election. I'm not sure if this article would best be a timeline but there is no doubt this article should be cut back, and I'm going to start with the pointless glossary of names and a timeline that starts in the 1980s. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with your first point, not with your second.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly the contents contradict the title, and it's been that way for ages. I have repeatedly removed irrelevant stuff such as what happened in the 1980s, and have been systematically reverted by editor X1\, who behaves as article WP:OWNER and does not assume good faith from other participants. Good luck. — JFG talk 08:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Websurfer2: There doesn't appear to be any consensus for including a glossary of names and for events before 2015. Per WP:BRD I reverted the addition of that content, so please make sure you have consensus for these edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: It is premature to judge as only the redacted Mueller Report is public; and of the redactions, there are 12 referrals which continuing investigations. There are RSs for the other items. Given the significance of this continuing event, I'd expect there to be a Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020). X1\ (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not premature to say that an article doesn't need a glossary of names to precede it. Just introduce relevant people when they appear in the timeline. This article feels more like some documentary than an encyclopaedic article, including far too much detail about things other than the role of the Russian government in the 2016 elections. There is an unfortunate focus on Donald Trump and his presidential campaign altogether, rather than the actions of the Russian government, even when cutting down the article to between 2015 and 2017. Notifying Slatersteven and JFG, who I encourage to remove irrelevant information from this article when they see any. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: I don't see a consensus here for deleting 76 KB that have been there for most of a year. Where is your track record on contributing to this timeline? There has been so much vandalism of this article that it is easy to see 76KB deleted from the top of the article as more vandalism. Where is the discussion beyond you just jumping in and deleting away? Websurfer2 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: You deleted a lot of material that has been discussed in the past and approved by consensus. Read the archived talk pages before making major design changes or you risk being treated as a vandal. @BullRangifer: @PackMecEng: @AmYisroelChai: Comments? Websurfer2 (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: You ruined your own argument by deleting a bunch of material about actions of the Russian government. What are you trying to hide?Websurfer2 (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that we should really only cover events and periods linked (directly) to allegation of interference. But I would rather users made suggestions as to what we can remove before removing it, content is long standing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Websurfer2, all I removed what the list of individuals and events before 2015. Of course there is much more in the rest of the article that should be removed. For example I saw one entry that simply described Jared Kushner being appointed to some position by the president-elect. This is not something that the Russian government has done relevant to the election. I would like to hear which events from before 2015 you think are relevant, but the timeline went as far back as 1986 which is clearly ridiculous. This article is simply not supposed to be about Donald Trump's connections to Russians and Russia, this is supposed to be an article about what the Russian government has done in the 2016 elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW I agree that this timeline has been subjected to scope creep, and we should focus on Russian interference + the investigation thereof. I also think the glossary of relevant individuals was useful, but that was also expanded beyond reason to name everybody remotely mentioned in anything having to do with Trump's election -- again, out of scope. I would be willing to suggest a shorter list of names that have been clearly identified as directly related to Russian interference. — JFG talk 11:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- How about we leave the name list in the article for now but restore the other removals I made? Concerned editors can look through what has been removed to see if there is something they think should be kept, but we're never going to get this article to a reasonable size if we have to propose each part to remove. The continuous additions have been made without appropriate oversight. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW I agree that this timeline has been subjected to scope creep, and we should focus on Russian interference + the investigation thereof. I also think the glossary of relevant individuals was useful, but that was also expanded beyond reason to name everybody remotely mentioned in anything having to do with Trump's election -- again, out of scope. I would be willing to suggest a shorter list of names that have been clearly identified as directly related to Russian interference. — JFG talk 11:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Websurfer2, all I removed what the list of individuals and events before 2015. Of course there is much more in the rest of the article that should be removed. For example I saw one entry that simply described Jared Kushner being appointed to some position by the president-elect. This is not something that the Russian government has done relevant to the election. I would like to hear which events from before 2015 you think are relevant, but the timeline went as far back as 1986 which is clearly ridiculous. This article is simply not supposed to be about Donald Trump's connections to Russians and Russia, this is supposed to be an article about what the Russian government has done in the 2016 elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not premature to say that an article doesn't need a glossary of names to precede it. Just introduce relevant people when they appear in the timeline. This article feels more like some documentary than an encyclopaedic article, including far too much detail about things other than the role of the Russian government in the 2016 elections. There is an unfortunate focus on Donald Trump and his presidential campaign altogether, rather than the actions of the Russian government, even when cutting down the article to between 2015 and 2017. Notifying Slatersteven and JFG, who I encourage to remove irrelevant information from this article when they see any. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: @Onetwothreeip: Please stop these mass deletions until you have WP:CONSENSUS (and I don't mean just between the two of you). A statement from one editor that they don't like the content and two endorsements within 65 minutes is not WP:CONSENSUS, violates WP:SILENT, shows WP:OWNERSHIP, and is a form of WP:EDITWAR. Good faith editing involves acknowledging past consensus expressed in the archived talk pages, whether or not you agree with it. Insisting that your consent is required to modify or add content in areas that you don't like is a clear expression of WP:OWNERSHIP. Websurfer2 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: @Onetwothreeip: I suggest you review the WP:1RR warnings displayed at the top of this talk page when editing:
- Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
- Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Websurfer2 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- There was never consensus to keep all the stuff prior to 2015. What happened was that editors opposed to this undue scope creep were badgered, accused of bad faith, and got tired of arguing. Read the archives. See for example the RfC on Trump's 1987 trip. Now, time for a fresh start. — JFG talk 06:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is absurd. There wasn't any consensus to include the things that I removed. Whoever placed those things in the article didn't obtain consensus for them. There is absolutely no way that my edits can be seen as vandalism, you're just trying to pretend that it is so that you can revert it more than once.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism
is blatantly false, and WP:NOTVANDALISM. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
BRD sanction
Just a note that the Consensus Required rule has been replaced with the BRD rule for this page. ~Awilley (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
This article is very long
As of this revision, even after being split twice 449224 bytes. I'd like one or two parts of this to be split into separate articles. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @FoxyGrampa75: What is your specific suggestion? It would be helpful for you to be constructively involved here for such as comment. It isn't and hasn't been "too long". X1\ (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Editors BullRangifer and Volunteer Marek have re-added about 100,000 bytes of information between them that was previously removed. Before I revert these edits, I will give them a chance to show where consensus was reached for these parts, since they are claiming there has been consensus for them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the content was there for quite some time until you recently came and started removing [1] without consensus. So, the violation (if any) is yours. Any long-standing text means "consensus" by default. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Any long-standing text means "consensus" by default.
Where are you getting this from? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)- That is the general understanding, and has been for many years. While bold editing is certainly allowed and often encouraged, when one makes large deletions (rarely a good idea without a clearly established consensus), especially of long-standing content, it's bound to get noticed, and when other editors protest it's best to back off and find out what's going on. That's collaborative editing, in contrast to solo editing.
- Regardless of all that, now that BRD is the rule for this DS article (rather than "consensus required"), your Bold deletions have been Reverted (rejected), and we should Discuss until we reach a consensus on what to do. Until then, long-standing content created through the hard and good faith work of many editors should remain. (See WP:PRESERVE). As I'm sure you will agree, edit warring, including "slow edit warring" (the same type of rejected edits over many days and/or weeks), won't do any good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I encourage you and others to read WP:BRD. This 100,000 bytes of information has been boldly placed into the article and I reverted it, unless you can point to where there was a consensus for it. Others have reverted these bold edits before but were themselves reverted, without any consensus to do so. Looking through the talk page I have found more disapproval than approval in this excessive detail, with the approval mostly being two particular editors. I am actually the one reverting edits here which is clearly very much needed. This is now Wikipedia's largest article at almost 500,000 bytes, with the scope expanding from actions of the Russian government to just about anything regarding anyone related to Donald Trump doing anything related to anyone related to the Russian government. These are major encyclopaedic concerns, when this article reads more like a detective novel imploring readers to "follow the money" and for readers here to be provided with a broad amount of information for them to draw a conclusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I can not see it in the editing history of the page. Who and when placed that 100,000 bytes of information? Which exactly "bold" edit did you or others revert? Can you give me a diff of the "bold edit" by someone else which you reverted? My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've been here since 2003 and have contributed heavily to BRD, so the admonishment is unneeded. BRD generally applies to a single edit, large or small, by one person, or small group of connected edits made in immediate succession to each other by one person. It definitely does not apply to the slow and steady addition of content by numerous editors over a long period of time. When those edits are allowed to remain, they become the status quo/consensus version (even if individual editors may disagree with some of that content). Then a policy, not an essay like BRD, becomes the overriding rule, and that policy is WP:PRESERVE.
- That's how we build the encyclopedia, and solo editors are rarely allowed to undo all that hard work (tear down the encyclopedia) in one fell swoop, unless there is a consensus to accept their massive change. That is a rare occurrence, usually only done with uncontroversial articles.
- To make sure I understand you correctly, are you implying that one person added "100,000 bytes of information" in one edit or series of connected edits? If that happened, I'm pretty sure it would have immediately been reverted and BRD cited. I would certainly have reverted it. When did this mass addition happen, and which editor did it? Please provide the diff. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, he removed a lot of content, starting from Butina, which is quite obviously related to the subject of the page. One might argue the list should be split to several sub-pages, but not to remove this content. However, I would suggest not to split. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I asked for when this mass addition occurred. Splitting the article is always a possibility, but that too needs consensus. That happened with the "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017)" article. It is now divided into three articles: 2016, 2017, 2018. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, he removed a lot of content, starting from Butina, which is quite obviously related to the subject of the page. One might argue the list should be split to several sub-pages, but not to remove this content. However, I would suggest not to split. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I encourage you and others to read WP:BRD. This 100,000 bytes of information has been boldly placed into the article and I reverted it, unless you can point to where there was a consensus for it. Others have reverted these bold edits before but were themselves reverted, without any consensus to do so. Looking through the talk page I have found more disapproval than approval in this excessive detail, with the approval mostly being two particular editors. I am actually the one reverting edits here which is clearly very much needed. This is now Wikipedia's largest article at almost 500,000 bytes, with the scope expanding from actions of the Russian government to just about anything regarding anyone related to Donald Trump doing anything related to anyone related to the Russian government. These are major encyclopaedic concerns, when this article reads more like a detective novel imploring readers to "follow the money" and for readers here to be provided with a broad amount of information for them to draw a conclusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
A clarification seems to be in order. The scope of this article isn't just Russia, but anything remotely related to the Russia investigation and history, and that obviously includes Trump and his 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.) This goes very far back, and RS see that as the origins of the current interference in our elections. That's why this is all on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Here is the cutoff for inclusion. These earlier events must be discussed in RS as related to events that had happen in 2016. To my knowledge, most of them satisfy such criterion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Please see WP:VNOTSUFF. Anything can be construed as "related" to anything else. Luke Harding's speculations about "30 years of cultivation of Trump" by the KGB are only relevant for our articles about Harding's books. — JFG talk 04:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- According to policy you cited, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article..." First of all, no one tells that any verifiable information should be included, but only such the sources tell is relevant. Secondly, it tells about consensus. There is no consensus to remove this long-standing content. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Please see WP:VNOTSUFF. Anything can be construed as "related" to anything else. Luke Harding's speculations about "30 years of cultivation of Trump" by the KGB are only relevant for our articles about Harding's books. — JFG talk 04:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
My very best wishes There have been many bold edits that contributed to the 100,000 bytes that are of concern here. They are simply not events of the Russian government, or reaction to them. All that has really come close in justification is saying that these things are "related". BullRangifer Either way, there has not been consensus to retain those edits which have been progressively added into the article. It is correct that content that is allowed to remain, that isn't contentious and that isn't reverted forms a status quo WP:SILENT consensus, but clearly I have not allowed to remain, and many people on the talk page have objected for years now. As I've said before, the scope of this article has clearly gone well beyond the actions of the Russian government, it's just an glorified detective narrative now, not an encyclopaedic article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK. (1) As follows from your response (no diff), it is you who decided to boldly remove materials without getting consensus. (2) Like I said, earlier events must be discussed in some RS as related to the Russian interference during 2016 elections to be included in the list (yes, this is not an encyclopedic article, but a list). If you think that any specific event in the list was not discussed in RS in such manner, please tell which one, and perhaps it indeed needs to be removed, if there is a consensus to remove. This is the way to go forward. But just removing events which are related to the subject according to RS [2] is not going to work. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Anything before 2015 is irrelevant to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, and I have removed it again. Editors clamoring for inclusion bear the WP:ONUS to obtain positive consensus. Go start an RfC. — JFG talk 04:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Anything before 2015 is irrelevant". Said who? You? RS (see link above as one of many examples) tell they are highly relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's a clear violation of our PRESERVE policy. Very disappointing, not at all collaborative, and without a consensus to trash the hard work of numerous editors. That certainly destroys any motivation to make any edits at Wikipedia if one editor can do that.
- The burden is on you to start an RfC to delete that material. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: I don't need consensus to remove something that was placed in the article without consensus, this is basic Wikipedia practice honestly. I'm willing to hold the material on my user page if editors would like to salvage parts from that if they wish. It's also very troubling that yourself and BullRangifer think it's appropriate to include anything related to Trump in this article. If this article, a list article or not, is not enecyclopaedic then it simply does not belong here and should be deleted. These sources simply say that certain things happen, they don't say that they should be included in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. "You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks". Therefore, all long-standing content reflects consensus simply by default. On the other hand, your edit was immediately reverted. That means your edit has no consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus,
You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting.
There is no silence in this case, otherwise it would be fine. I have objected here, and I have reverted the edits. A silent consensus means that while there is no formal consensus outlined on the talk page, the lack of objection to the content forms the consensus itself. There is clearly objection to the content here; I am objecting, and I'm not the only one either. The steps in WP:BRD are bold edit, revert and discuss, not bold edit, revert, revert, discuss. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)- Sure, let's follow WP:BDR. But what had happen? First, you made bold edit by removing a lot of content [3]. Then, someone else reverted you edit [4]. Now, you suppose to start talking and get consensus for the change pe WP:BRD. But what did you do instead? You started an edit war [5]. Now, I believe that everything was fully explained to you. Next time, someone might report this to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, I made the revert, not the bold edit(s). The additions into the article are the bold edits. That doesn't mean they were good or bad, it just means they were made without consensus. They're allowed to stay there until such time as someone reverts the contributions, if consensus hasn't already been reached on the talk page. Per WP:SILENT, there is an implicit consensus when there is silence, and when there is disagreement (like now), that no longer exists. WP:ONUS makes this perfectly clear. I think instead we should focus on making a new article for the connections between Trump and Russia that may or may not specifically pertain to the actions of the Russian government in the 2016 election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus,
Events prior to 2015
Given the threads above and the slow-moving edit war that has been ongoing for a few days regarding pre-2015 events, there are clearly editors who think that nothing is relevant and others who think that everything is relevant. Perusing the archives, I can't find a positive or negative consensus for anything, although several entries have been disputed, some of them repeatedly over 2+ years. Therefore I'd like to suggest a constructive way to resolve our differences:
- Keep all pre-2015 events out of the timeline for now
- Group these events by theme (Trump's 1987 trip, Butina's activities, etc.)
- Discuss each theme within its own thread, and come to consensus on relevancy
- Include content on which consensus was reached
- For each theme on which local consensus was not reached, start an RfC to gather wider community input.
Let me know what you all think. — JFG talk 22:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Looking through the talk page archives and the edit history, there are many instances of added content being challenged, which has been largely ignored and reinstated by the two editors contributing the most content to the article. I would suggest creating a new article about Trump's connections to Russian entities if editors believe that is an important topic, while keeping this article simply for the Russian government's involvement in the 2016 election. Not everything in the Mueller Report or reliable sources about Trump and Russia has to be here, and we're certainly not here to make a case and convince anybody of the extent or severity of the connections between Trump and the Russian government. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said above: if you think that any specific event does not belong to the list, please tell which one, and perhaps it should be removed. However, you are saying that ALL events before year 2015 do not belong to the page. Unfortunately, you are wrong because a number of RS (currently cited on the page) tell they are relevant. If you insist, please start an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Relevancy has nothing to do with the scope of the article. Clearly the Russian Federation is very relevant to this article, but we're not including everything there is about Russia. Again, if editors find it important that Wikipedia documents Trump's connections with Russian entities, that can form a separate article which would certainly have some overlap with this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is a timeline of events, not a list of countries. If RS are saying that an event X in Russian Federation (for example, creation of Internet Research Agency) was relevant to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, then yes, it should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- By that logic the creation of Russia and United States would be included in this article, or the birth of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, or the existence of Russian people, or even elections themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is a timeline of events, not a list of countries. If RS are saying that an event X in Russian Federation (for example, creation of Internet Research Agency) was relevant to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, then yes, it should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Relevancy has nothing to do with the scope of the article. Clearly the Russian Federation is very relevant to this article, but we're not including everything there is about Russia. Again, if editors find it important that Wikipedia documents Trump's connections with Russian entities, that can form a separate article which would certainly have some overlap with this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said above: if you think that any specific event does not belong to the list, please tell which one, and perhaps it should be removed. However, you are saying that ALL events before year 2015 do not belong to the page. Unfortunately, you are wrong because a number of RS (currently cited on the page) tell they are relevant. If you insist, please start an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)