This article was nominated for deletion on 27 July 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.
A fact from Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
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 obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
I was sure I had seen information here about the emails to Democrats, threatening them if they didn't vote for Trump and claiming to be from the Proud Boys, and the US report that they came from Iran. I don't see that here and I don't see it having been deleted. Maybe I was thinking about some other article? In any case, it needs to be here and I will look into adding it, maybe tomorrow. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in this article about the report filed late by John Ratcliff, titled "Views on Intelligence Community Election Security Analysis". Is there no credible source, or was this overlooked? There is also a response due by (my estimate) February 19, from the new Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, at least, according to Executive Order 13848 section 1(b). Any thoughts? Wcichello (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trump administration interference in the 2020 United States elections
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There have been several sources of election interference in the 2020 elections, and the Russian interference isn't nearly as bad as expected; RS are saying the Russians have held back, having learned from 2016. (This time they won't get help, but risk punishment from Biden.) More and more focus in RS is documenting that the major source of interference and election-related disinformation is coming directly from the White House:
This version would have separate sections covering the interference by Trump (and his family and lawyers) and by the GOP. Both article versions could have a section about the vital role of right-wing media.
Several articles already have some sections that could be split off into the new article(s); we will just follow the rules for summary style and leave summaries and "main" links pointing to the new article(s). Here are some existing sections that all have something to do with attempts to interfere in the 2020 election:
I'm sure we have content spread across several other articles that could also help form the starting basis for the new article(s). Let's brainstorm. -- Valjean (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds generally like a good idea. (I was thinking of adding an "Aftermath" section of some sort to this article, relying on sources like those you list and this WaPo story, but I haven't had the time to draft it yet.) XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Starting this as a section here is quite logical. As it becomes UNDUE because of topic and size, there will be a growing justification for a split, and the subarticle can be created at that time. -- Valjean (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems like a good idea given this latest news of the bipartisan condemnation of the firing of Christopher C. Krebs, and now with hindsight many statements of Trump administration officials and from Trump himself such as “Maybe we'll give that a shot someday” about the U.S. having a president for life, which does not at all appear to have been a “joke” at this point, if the constant praise of unelected and national-constitution-overriding dictators wasn't enough of a clue.Given Krebs's activities at CISA as described in RS the center of mass, as it were, of election interference does appear to firmly fall domestically. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|13:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Domestic interference" seems to be an oxymoron when there hasn't been sufficient illegal activity to implicate Trump or the entire GOP. This article reaks of WP:OR, I disagree with its creation especially under the proposed titles Anon0098 (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to the U.S. law(s) which make(s) election interference of the sort laid out illegal, Anon0098? A noted behavior of President Trump and many of his confederates is that they take advantage of the opportunity to do things which there are not explicit laws or rules against because in all previous political states of play, the actions simply would by consensus not be accepted. It doesn't mean they haven't done these things. It could even be that “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”—but note that we still have lots of articles on “it”, even in that famous case.Also take, for example, a U.S. President declaring that the United States should have a president-for-life, based on the example of the leader of the People's Republic of China. A rational expectation would be that any president saying something of this sort would be pitched out of office in short order, given that our national origin story is the whole revolution against the tyranny of kings and all that. But, by the millions, supporters and elected officials continue to enthusiastically endorse Trump and everything he stands for, including whatever the political override of an election loss which can't be successfully overcome in court would mean for the country. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|23:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "rational expectation" for Trump to be "pitched out of office in short order" for making a comment. There is no mechanism for that to happen. If Trump and co were not breaking the law, on what basis do you decide that it is "domestic interference"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a variety of arguments that could be made but I'll pick this one: if the President of the United States and his affiliates did the aforementioned things in a foreign election, that would unquestionably be extreme election interference; hence doing them in a U.S. election is also election interference. For example, last year the U.S.'s own Voice of America ran this headline: “Trump Accused of Attempting to Interfere in British Election” and the above is way, way more than he ever put out about the U.K. election. Then, he was trying to act as a kingmaker; now, he is also trying to act as a kingmaker. You really can't see that “a Wikipedia article title like that would require an open-and-shut case of breaking a U.S. law!” is fallacious?Besides, why don't you just propose a better title, then?Also, I have to ask... you're saying that if Obama had said the U.S. ought to try out a president-for-life—like China—you'd have been going around telling anyone who said he should be pitched out of office in short order that they had an irrational expectation? I mean there was a whole lot of talk anyways about throwing Obama out of office, just birtherism for starters, for which there is “no mechanism” either—so were you telling those people (like, y'know, Trump) how irrational they were being? --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|01:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. If Obama had been born elsewhere, he would have been ineligible to be president. And anyone who demands a US president be removed for making a comment is irrational. It's not going to happen. But I don't see a way of deciding whether a president was interfering in a US election if he or she didn't do anything illegal. Wouldn't that just be politics?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, per your earlier argument there's still no specific mechanism to remove a president because Donald Trump was totally going to find Obama's one true birth certificate from Kenya in two weeks. And as another simple straightforward example with a comment, from the perspective of someone loyal to the ideal of America, if the current President were to expand his list of shithole countries to include the U.S. itself, it would also be quite rational to demand that he be removed. But as I said, divergent state of play, no rules, etc., I'm inclined to think that a whole lot of people today would just accept it and scream with delight or something.To pick one of the items above—2020 United States presidential election § False claims of fraud—if, say, Norway had an election, and all of the Norwegian election officials stated there was no evidence of material fraud, and all suits in Norwegian courts which might effect the outcome of the election were dismissed, and a cybersecurity agency specifically set up to ensure the integrity of the election announced that “the most secure in Norwegian history” and “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised”, but the President of the United States, despite having all the resources of the entire U.S. government at his disposal to find supporting evidence, simply kept repeating on Twitter, ex officio, that the election outcome should have been the opposite of what it was—that would not be politics, not even Norwegian politics, it would just be election interference. Rather pathetic, wheedling election interference at that. Same thing if it happens in the U.S. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|04:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Interference" means getting involved in someone else's business. Trump isn't interfering with the election. He's one of the candidates. Contesting a result is not interference, however inappropriate it might be. Your comments about removing presidents make no sense to me, and I don't think they are relevant here. In fact, I don't think this discussion is very relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, right, stuff like me asking why you don't simply propose a better article title in a discussion of a new article where you're taking issue with the two suggested titles is simply irrelevant.Besides all the other possible arguments, there's a centuries-old legal principle (I thought it went back to Roman times, but according to our article it's Renaissance-era... still, centuries): nemo iudex in causa sua, “no man shall be a judge in his own cause”. By seeking to become the law, particularly accompanied by the “Lock her up!” chorus for imprisoning his political opponent without trial, Trump has pretty much deported himself from “only the law and my expensive lawyers get to decide what's said about me!” territory. Hence, firing Krebs does not erase or invalidate all of the stuff Krebs said about what Trump said about the election.He really just expected to become a dictator with no real effort, just another scam, and to be able to crush every enemy like his idols around the world. But he really should have paid attention when the Obamas had trouble even getting toy companies to not make dolls of their daughters. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|13:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble?!? All it seems to have to taken to repackage those dolls was a mother's disapproval. You want real domestic trouble, try burying the toymaker's own children deep offshore and keeping it secret for millions of years before arising from your own grave during a thunderstorm and molding their musty petroleum into lifelike action figures bearing the trademark stripes of your reigning descendant's political rival's beloved family pet, Checkers. That is to say, don't try, you'll be sorry! But Jack's absolutely right, the idea of a wicked man, his foul ghouls and his Republican party "interfering" in his own election is beyond amazing, incredible or unexplained, it's creeping into nursery goose territory. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, I'm not proposing a better title for this broad collection of loosely-connected dots, because such a cobblejob seems likely to produce an abomination that should not exist, regardless of whatever good intention in its hypothetical creators. If you already see an existing pattern of arguably meddlesome (mis/dis)information interwoven throughout previously-published Trump articles, that's quite enough. The links Valjean provided are helpful to those who'd retrace the same thread, but in the way a playlist can help people "rediscover" old songs, no officially branded compilation package needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anon0098: Uh, so... are you saying that someone needs to be really sympathetic to “Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections” before they can edit this article? Or that one needs to have a warm fuzzy feeling about presidents for life rather than disdain, or that I need to think that Trump firing Christopher C. Krebs was a fair-minded, impartial, pro-transparency decision, or something? Is liking the fact that Krebs, as a Trump Administration official, said this election was “the most secure in American history”... uh, too disdainful? Or something? What do you mean, exactly?And you obviously have disdain for the mere term “domestic interference”, calling it an oxymoron, despite the fact that no one seems able to provide a single previous example in English of “interference” being used in a sense inherently contradictory to “domestic”, and as I've repeatedly pointed out—to no response—there was no objection in the recent title change discussion for this article that “foreign interference” is redundant. So would your position on “recusal” mean you have to recuse yourself from a hypothetical “Domestic interference in the 2020 United States elections” article, or is this concept all about you getting to disqualify other editors from editing articles?I am really honestly curious to hear your answers to these questions: the editors lacking dis-dain for Trump's “president for life” comment, for example, also seem awfully dis-inclined to answer questions of substance in this talk page. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|01:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? I was specifically referring you to calling things "pathetic" and your insinuation that Trump is attempting to become a dictator. You know oxymoron is an actual word, right? It's not derogatory. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but go on paragraph-long rants throughout this entire talk page. Calm down Anon0098 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wait, wait: your actual complaint is that I called the election interference pathetic? And not even the real election interference, but my hypothetical Norwegian election interference? Like, because I don't have enough respect for election interference, I shouldn't be editing articles about election interference?Congratulations, you have genuinely managed to astound me.And you're telling me to calm down. Because I'm writing, gasp, entire paragraphs. Sorry, but I've been touch-typing since I was twelve and it's fast and effortless, and I don't text at all so I'm not part of the abbreviated writing culture. I'd again encourage you to write more—get less calm, I suppose, or whatever you need to actually engage in a topic and make cogent counterarguments.Obviously it's not merely having “oxymoron” in your vocabulary which expresses disdain—it's falsely applying to a term, in a way you don't even attempt to support, as an offhanded way to dismiss that term as incoherent. This whole “recusal” concept is yours, not mine.And no insinuation: Trump has actually said these things, and constantly praises dictators. Before he was even elected he gushed about how Saddam Hussein was just great because he “killed terrorists”—meaning our allies, the Kurds, whom we called freedom fighters. Specifically by using chemical weapons against civilian targets among his nation's own people, so that men, women, and children died choking on the blood foaming out of their lungs. If you think everyone is required to like these things about Trump, as so many apparently do, before they can write Wikipedia articles, just go ahead and say that. I'm definitely not the one making insinuations or not following through with my arguments here. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|03:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struthious Bandersnatch, and everyone else, cut out this forum crap. Struthious, you’re a decent editor, but you are regularly veering off into WP:NOTFORUM territory, and personalizing disputes. I realize that the prospect of a possible constitutional crisis in the United States, and seemingly irreconcilable worldviews have frayed nerves. But everyone should take several steps back, and refrain from theses sorts of exchanges. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other possibilities, so, taking my cue from RS, here are a few that are related to the title above:
The original suggested title uses the more neutral "interference" as a fairly neutral umbrella term, but RS use "steal", "undermine", "overturn", "disenfranchise", "suppression", and "rig" a whole lot, and they are all forms of interference. Google searches of each suggestion turn up myriad RS we could use. I prefer the original and more neutral suggested title, but the body of the article would be populated with the RS using the other wordings. -- Valjean (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. If I may undermine and attempt to overturn another of your points, can you now also see how I'm "angling", "clamoring" and "aspiring" to win our final dispute over how interference works without help from an uninvolved person or party? Same with Trump, Pence and their chosen representatives. That side, or the opposing side, could pull out the dirtiest trick in the book, and be 100% not guilty of interfering. Russia, Canada, other foreign agents, bodies or objects, whole other deal, complete and utter 180 from domestic democratic "battles". Still maybe guilty of something far worse and/or more illegal, but not interference. Fair enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then, looking at my latest group of suggestions, what would be a more appropriate title for that? The trick is to make the title describe the content in the sources, not the opposite. -- Valjean (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's happening is totally weird and unprecedented (except for Alexander Hamilton's attempt to steal the election). This is a very notable topic, so, in keeping with our mandate to document the sum of all human knowledge, how can be cover this topic? -- Valjean (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only cure for weird and unprecedented is going about things normally, as precedented. You've shown us the articles where your observations fit best, so plant more of the same in those familiar haunts or tend to what already lies buried and forgotten. Also, forgive the rhetoric, I've been reading a line of ghost comics called Ghost Comics. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: So, just to be clear here, your argument is that the foreign origin of “interference”, when that word is used in the context of an election, is so implicit that to speak of “domestic interference” is incoherent or an oxymoron as Anon0098 claims and that hence, presumably, things like Jim Crow laws, lynching, extrajudicial killing (and proposing political violence is nothing new from the current president—to pick just one example, as the foreign press noted, during the 2016 campaign he proposed a “Second Amendment” solution to the nomination of judges)—presumably where those “dirtiest trick[s] in the book” were used in American history, you would be concerned if the terms “interference” or “domestic interference” were applied to them? This seems like a citation needed situation, and I'd think what you're saying would mean that “foreign interference” as in the above proposed title change for this article is therefore redundant, but I've never heard any argument that would even get close to that effect made until here on this talk page—and not in the above discussion at all, just in this one.Thanks for your advice that the citizens of my country should just act as if everything is normal and all, but I disagree with Valjean that this kind of stuff is really unprecedented—it's only unprecedented for dominant groups in U.S. history. I'll truncate my response in the interest of NOTFORUM but even if you were white, there were things like the Mormon Extermination Order and of course, for blacks, for large segments of the country's history it was like living in North Korea, in some places and times even like late-twentieth-century North Korea. Extreme undemocratic behavior here is nothing new. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|18:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To everything before "and that hence, presumably...", Yes. After that, I think I misunderstand the question (too many layers). But yeah, America has always been a terrible place to live for groups the municipal, state and federal governments of the time persecuted, diminished or killed. I am in no way excusing or equating any atrocity, past or future, real or hypothetical. Just saying nothing is interference (nor "foreign interference" nor "outside interference" nor "extracorporeal interference from another dimension") if it comes from within. Within a country's electoral system, within a house's water supply, within a goalie's own crease. It's simply [insert appropriate infraction]. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL... I am genuinely laughing out loud... so the user above holding forth about NOTFORUM and “seemingly irreconcilable worldviews” (cue mournful violin music) is actually a dual-account editor who spends their time at the Parler article talk page testifying to the wonderful ideological diversity on the service, in the company of my recently-AP2-topic-banned old friend Bus stop, whose banning stemmed from behavior in that same talk page.Touché, monsieur! I was taken in completely by your authoritative-sounding Latin account name, but I can see now that the Classical name for the account had a different reason. You non-serious users and your wacky antics!Anyways, InedibleHulk, I was also going to point out above that some Trump supporters, at least, are openly saying that they're ready to start killing people if he gives the Tweet or the Parley or whatever. The mayor of the Texas town at that link saying he'll only stand down if Trump openly says that Biden won fairly is quite reminiscent of Emperor Hirohito having to give the Jewel Voice Broadcast, and there were still holdouts for decades to come. But no such message is coming in this case, and we are in for a rough ride for the forseeable future, which may in the end prevent our political system from staving off other dangerous situations.So that's why accurately documenting things like domestic election interference and antidemocratic activities in the United States, without euphemism that it's “just politics”, is important. I don't have a particular preference for use of the phrase “domestic interference” but the opposition to that appears to be completely novel ad hoc sophistry to me.(many edit conflicts; quote is from original version of above comment) Replying to your most recent message, InedibleHulk: nothing is interference if it comes from within—ah, again, this is not the normal definition of the word “interference”, no one brought up an objection that “foreign interference” was redundant in the above titling discussion (so, like, some kind of cite, please), and despite your blanket handwavey assertion that you are not diminishing or minimizing atrocities (I think?) you are explicitly saying that the things that happened during Jim Crow, including extrajudicial killing to inhibit voting, simply must not be described as “domestic interference” in elections.Merely repeating the previous statement with more jokey wording, and an apparent claim that a house's water supply can't be interfered with from inside the house (...? like what if you disconnect everything and pipe the water directly down a drain, or open a window and blow up a nearby water tower with a bazooka?), doesn't change anything. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|19:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what became of Bus stop?!? Sweet merciful crap. I'll have to call you back about the rest, not here, somewhere...undignified and proper. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He stayed on his own track, though, I appreciate that. Anyway, fuck ad hoc sophistry (for now). The basis of why I believe none of us can interfere in our own destinies is in most if not all modern dictionaries. And I'd call killing someone to inhibit voting "voter suppression". Domestic voter suppression, to be wordy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Destiny. I must say, I find your unvarnished faith in the inevitability of democratic outcomes in the American political system (unless your objection is simply that we haven't been specific enough and should be saying “domestic interference in small-d democratic elections” or “domestic interference in democracy” instead, taking it as assumed that the American political system does not necessarily arrive at democracy anyways) moving, but misplaced. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|21:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk: "none of us can interfere in our own destinies." Hmmm, but that's not what's happening. Trump is interfering in the election, which is not his. It belongs to the American people and affects them, Joe Biden, and national security. Trump is only one part of the picture of what's affected. When a cardplayer cheats, they are affecting everyone else who is playing or has a stake in the outcome of the game. The stakeholders in this election are all Americans, the allies of America, and also the enemies of America, who are eagerly going to exploit Trump's antics which weaken our national security and confidence in our elections. It affects those who are "inside" the house and "outside" the house. -- Valjean (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Destiny" was probably too vague and problematic, sorry. But however Trump, Pence and the Republicans came to be directly involved in this exact election, that's what made it their election. It has nothing to do with winning, losing or drawing. Just by virtue of participation as candidates and campaigners. Lying, cheating, stealing, threatening, killing, mocking, crying...all quite real! But not interfering in one's own path to whatever. Interference is only possible from outsiders. As the incumbent in a presidential election, Trump is no longer the outsider he was in 2016. He won his first contest, same as Pence won his. That's not a compliment or an insult, just how they factually came to directly challenge Biden, Harris and the Democrats right now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, at this point this seems more like a philosophical statement rather than anything about what an English word means. I notice that your response to my request for a citation has gone no further than an inspecific claim that what you are saying is supposedly supported by most if not all modern dictionaries.Could you maybe try to provide one example of anyone, ever, making the same objections about the use of the word “interference” except in this particular conversation on this particular Wikipedia talk page? To start a serious discussion about this, at least? I mean, we've already gone through the “You're not relevant! This court is not relevant!” phase above. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|22:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not philosophy. I'm not citing for you because A:) I don't understand what you want me to show you, and B:) I can't paste and am using a very slow input device. This is the first I've heard of any person or party interfering in its own business, in any context, ever. So yes, we have no precedent. If I could open a new tab without potentially crashing my browser, I'd slowly transcribe all the dictionaries, then correct all the typos and hit all the edit conflicts (which spell GAME OVER for one unable to paste), so just Google any modern definition for why this oxymoron does not work, it'd be so easy for you! I'm not lazy, but sheesh! Have you ever typed in a video game? Exactly my problem, feel for me, dammit! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so... like I said below, it's rather strange that you understood me well enough to claim that what you're saying is supposedly supported by most if not all modern dictionarieswithout a link, but then when I pressed for an actual citation suddenly just couldn't understand what I was asking for. (As a Wikipedian. A citation.) But philosophy or not, Google says 128,000 hits for the specific term alone. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|07:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk (I keep seeing "Indelible..."), there may be some semantic angle I'm missing in your comments, but if one card player intimidates/bribes the umpire, does not follow the rules of play, and/or "borrows", "steals", and/or "alters" another players cards and "manipulates" them so the other player ends up losing, and loses only because of that manipulation, doesn't that "manipulation" count as "interference" in the normal and lawful state of play of that game?
Here we're seeing attempts to literally throw out the lawful votes of whole counties, disenfranchise/suppress minority voters, ignore all the votes (Democrat and Republican) in counties carried by Democrats and certify all the votes in other counties, Trump observers obstructing recount, robocalls to keep people from voting, get judges to invalidate the lawful results and just declare Trump the winner, and attempts to get electors to become unfaithful and ignore the will of the people.
We are watching an unprecedented refusal to accept the will of the people, a full-court press to invalidate the lawful results at the end of the game, and then keep the ball by any means possible, regardless of traditions, laws, regulations, and Constitutional succession of power. -- Valjean (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Intimidators intimidate, manipulators manipulate, invalidators invalidate, cheaters cheat and lions suck at poker. See how there's a right word for everything? "Interferer" and "interfere" are basically the opposite, the wrong words. Just reread what I already wrote, I swear it'll sink in eventually, I'm cold and tired, and my thumbs are stiff, please just concede! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly sorry about this. Frustration with devices, slow connections, dense editors, etc. can be a pain in the ass. There is no rush. And I do apologize for not getting your point. I totally trust that you may well have a really good one, but for some reason, I'm just not "getting it," and, even though I speak two languages every day (thus can get a bit "language confused" at times), American English is my mother tongue. I can only go by what you've written, and the fault may be mine; I might have missed some key words you wrote above.
A key thing I notice, and where we might be "talking past each other," is found in this phrase of yours, an idea you have expressed previously above: "any person or party interfering in its own business." It's that "in its own business" part that's off, IMHO. This involves lots of other things than Trump. He's interfering in the business of the nation and his opponent, so it's not just "his own business." He isn't trying to manipulate his own affairs but the affairs of others, just as the Russians weren't interfering in their own affairs, but in the affairs of others (the USA). That's what Trump is doing. Read what I wrote immediately above (23:15) your last comment to me. I'm equating manipulation with interference. They are closely related concepts. It's entirely possible for Trump to interfere in the election, even though he's an involved party, because he's trying to interfere in the affairs and actions of others, not "his own business." In that sense at least, for the sake of argument, I'm agreeing with your premise that interference can only be done to others, and that's exactly what he's doing -- Valjean (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it's the American president's business to affect a much wider population than his immediate White Household. He inherently represents millions of people, so millions of people typically vote in presidential elections for whose business this presidency stuff is. In all politics, slimy skeezy schemes are routine ways to win votes and destroy challengers. When someone not normally expected to interject in American politics, like a Russian or Canadian, pulls the same, it becomes interference/intervention/international, but there is no "inter" in anything going on at the "inner" level, it takes two separate entities, minimum. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If one campaign sent an agent or malicious code in to get dirty with the other's inner workings, infrastructurewise, then I could conceivably begin to see a case for domestic election interference. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, in response to your repeated non-citation above and claim that This is the first I've heard of any person or party interfering in its own business, in any context, ever, I went and did your work for you (Can't paste, and can't Google I guess either? Are you one of those people who pretends you're going through a tunnel when you want to end a phone call?) and did a general Google search for “domestic interference”. Google's telling me 128,000 hits, of which, for example, the tenth hit is an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune from a few days ago which says,
...Krebs ran the agency, known as CISA, from its creation in the wake of Russian interference with the 2016 election through the November election. He won bipartisan praise as CISA coordinated federal state and local efforts to defend electoral systems from foreign or domestic interference.
Emphasis mine. So yeah. If you can't paste, you could've, for example, just come back here and said something like “I guess I was wrong, search in the Star Tribune.” (Quite odd that you understood what I was asking well enough to claim that most if not all modern dictionaries support your claims without a link, but when I pressed for a citation you suddenly had no idea what I was asking for.)Google Books Ngram Viewer, I will grant, doesn't show results for “domestic interference”, but gets hits for “internal interference” for example starting around 1870, it looks like. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|07:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I want to end a phone call, I say I have to go. I don't say where and I don't say why. Sometimes I say bye. And when I say "You're breaking up, I can't understand you", I mean it, Bandersnatch. Merriam-Webster says to interfere is to take part in another's business and Oxford claims it's to intervene without invitation or necessity. Like I said, domestic election interference plausibly makes sense if it means Republicans infiltrating and sabotaging the Democrat machine, or vice versa. Or if somebody in America unaffiliated with either campaign gunks up either or both's gears. Or even screws with the central election process between the candidates. That could very well be what Krebs supposedly helped protect against. But that's nothing to do with this specific pattern of Trump's non-interfering-but-dirty tactics. The Tribune is talking broadly, hypothetically. Google "estimates" mean nothing, they're just large round numbers. Go the very last page of any result, ends at like 138 or 312. Many, many duplicates. I have to go! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yeah, sure, Google index hit estimates aren't science, or anything, but it's more empirical evidence than anyone else has brought. Again—Could you maybe try to provide one example of anyone, ever, making the same objections about the use of the word “interference” except in this particular conversation on this particular Wikipedia talk page? To start a serious discussion about this, at least?And just to be clear, despite a direct quote from a reliable source using the specific term “domestic interference”, you're maintaining that, like, Wikipedia is too sexy for it or something, and we must not even use it to describe extrajudicial killings used to suppress voting?Would you also say that the United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment, with its clause support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which I've confirmed from sources in our article has been present since 1789, is also nonsensically self-contradictory? Can we have “domestic enemies” but not “domestic interference”? --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|08:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no. Except in this particular conversation on this particular Wikipedia talk page, I have never seen anyone, ever, making the same objections. I have never seen the need for anyone to object till Valjean brought it up. I've also never seen anyone object to the idea that cacti and frogs can produce viable offspring, but I would still side with the side that says they can't, based only on what we do know about the birds and the bees. The exact quote you're showing has nothing to do with Trump's attempts to win his own re-election bid. If Wikipedia wants to describe an extrajudicial killing or voter suppression, those exact terms are sexy enough, I don't know why you keep bringing them up, honestly. Domestic enemies are like anarchists, Islamists and other "homegrown" American extremists, not the President of the United States, seeking a second consecutive term as the Constitution says he has a right to. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting a malformed closure of a discussion open for circa four days, that didn't apparently attempt to follow any of the steps in Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Politrukki: I would try to follow one of the routes in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE but they all begin by talking about where to express disagreement with the closing comment that summarizes the consensus expressed in a thread, which you didn't do. You made unspecified claims about violations of WP:NOTFORUM—which I not only don't see at all, but most of the above discussion is semantic argument about whether particular phrasing is so self-contradictory as to invalidate the possible existence of a Wikipedia article title and the article itself, maybe, (and also the meaning of the word “interference” standalone, part of the {{ARTICLEPAGENAME}} title) which is basically the complete opposite of NOTFORUM: it's the kind of discussion that would only take place on Wikipedia, not on social media or a general discussion forum. NOTFORUM isn't about whether something is a good discussion of Wikipedia-related topics.You also made unspecific claims about violation of WP:NPA, which I also don't see, and which is not a great thing to put out without details. I'd note that in the edit summary where you changed Valjean's comment beforehand you cited WP:TPG which actually says Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning except in extreme cases, the example of an extreme case it gives being possible libel; it also says, of closing discussions, Closing a discussion means summarizing the results, and identifying any consensus that has been achieved and provides a link to the above information page. If you really feel a need for this discussion to be closed, please make a request at WP:AN/RFC; though I'd note that WP:CLOSE says, If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation and a citation for the above-alleged definition of “interference” might come at any time. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|08:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a quick close to save everyone's time. If you had questions, you could have just asked.
I thought it was obvious that this talk page is not a forum for novel theories. The first point of NOTFORUM policy says not to use Wikipedia for
Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
I think Since you are citing talk page guideline, would you care to explain why you removed my post, which was not libelous or such?
I read a link you used in the discussion. Did you challenge the similar NOTFORUM close at that talk page (the discussion is Get rid of "antisemitism" claim in header")? What about my 15 November revert? Technically, I wasn't removing anything that is explicitly allowed at WP:TPO. Are you going to challenge that revert too? I think both my talk page reverts followed the spirit of talk page guidelines.
I have to echo Inedible's edit summary that this hatting is "interference" in a conversation between other people, thus offending them. There are better ways to handle such things than clobbering and hijacking. -- Valjean (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, my edit summaries are intended to exist as a sideplot of sorts, attached to but not necessarily part of the main thread, so seeing them cross over like this is...unsettling? No, not that serious. Just a bit weird. But yeah, now that they're intertwined, it does seem a bit like Finnish meddling. Not sure I'd echo "clobbering and hijacking", maybe "clamping and derailing". Better ways do exist. That's the important thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A development that has occurred since the start of this thread should be noted. We now have this new article:
ec. The only reason I started this thread here was that there was no more logical spot at the time. It was about the subject of election interference, and editors who were interested in that topic were already here. Now there is a better location for this discussion.
If no one has any objections, I'll hat this discussion. Then I'll copy it over in a hatted "historical" section and start a new discussion there. No one here is obligated to continue there, but are certainly welcome if they are so inclined.
There was a short diversion of unpleasantness, but the discussion had returned to normal and constructive discourse, so the hatting was an unwelcome "minding others' business interference by an uninvolved person who had not participated in the discussion. Not good. The above hatting should really start at Anon0098 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2020, not at the beginning. -- Valjean (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely fine with it happening, as the ostensible victim, and think you should have left that much alone for simplicity's sake. I knew what was intended, before and after. Just the overall premise of this section that has me baffled, the small details are sharp. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The addition did not affect the actual discussion. Inedibile understood perfectly well what was happening. If the part I had changed had been altered so as to affect the discussion, that would have been a different matter. -- Valjean (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there is a better article location for this discussion, may I hat this whole thread? My hatting note will explain where. -- Valjean (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
