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.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump 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.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump 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
Trump Tower meeting 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 Hillary Clinton, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Hillary ClintonWikipedia:WikiProject Hillary ClintonTemplate:WikiProject Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton articles
C
This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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 is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
RfC: Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson?
There is a clear consensus against including this material unless significant new information or sources emerge. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson, similar to the proposed text below?
On July 21, 2017, a subpoena was issued to Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and ranking Democrat Feinstein after he refused to testify.[1] He then agreed to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee behind closed doors, and the subpoena was withdrawn.[2] The committee wanted to question Simpson about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which they can use "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to the Trump campaign or the Russian government."[3] Grassley and Feinstein tied the Fusion GPS's foreign registration issue and the Trump Jr. meeting together "by calling on Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort to testify at the hearing."[4] Simpson said that the firm collaborated on a lawsuit with Veselnitskaya for two years, but denied any "untoward connection".[3] Simpson will not testify at the public hearing, but instead will be interviewed privately, under terms of an agreement.[5] Browder testified before the Committee on the Judiciary on July 27, 2017, claiming that Veselnitskaya was representing the Kremlin's interests in the meeting, which was arranged for persuading the future lifting of the Magnistky Act.[6]
References
^Cite error: The named reference inteltestify was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Support it's a significant development. Atsme📞📧 16:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOTNEWS. I fail to see how this is anything more than routine evidence gathering. There's no attempt here to connect Simpson or FusionGPS to the meeting that's the subject of the article, beyond the fact that they used to work with one of its participants. In fact, the cited sources make clear that the reason Simpson was subpoenaed had nothing to do with the meeting. I understand the temptation to feast on every breadcrumb of this mysterious and enticing story, but that's more Reddit than Wikipedia. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DrFleischman see this article, one of many that shows the connection. The media made the connection, and even more revelations have come forward in Browder's testimony on July 27, 2017 regarding the Russian connections among the parties at the Trump Jr meeting and Fusion GPS. Atsme📞📧 21:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a meaningful connection made in that article. All it says is that Simpson and one of the meeting participants were both accused by Browder of failing to register under FARA. That's encyclopedic how exactly? Please explain the connection in your own words. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try, DrFleischman - the primary connection is Veselnitskaya. Fusion GPS (who did opposition research on Trump) was working for the law firm Baker-Hostetler who was representing Prevezon. Veselnitskaya was Prevezon’s lawyer. Trump team lawyers connected some dots, and now believe the June meeting was somehow a planned deception by Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS (in my own words) to frame Trump Jr. et al by luring them to the meeting, then making it appear as though they were colluding with Russian operatives. In other words, the Trump legal team saw it as where there is no dirt - create it! So they suckered-in the politically inexperienced son of a politically inexperienced candidate. WaPo and others have indicated something along that line, although Fusion GPS adamantly denies the connection..but then, so does everyone else who has been accused in this long drawn-out affair.Atsme📞📧 23:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but now you're just making shit up. You're not suggesting that we include that stuff in our article, are you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am offended because I did not make it up. Maybe you need to read more. I may have used my own words but the information came from more than one RS. Good day to you, too. Atsme📞📧 00:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide sources please. You can't expect me to take you on faith for all of thoe assertions, and if there's a meaningful connection between the proposed content and the article subject, then it must be included. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the NY Times source you provided and it does not verify your so-called connection in any way, shape, or form. If you'd like, we should take this to user talk, because I would really like to be convinced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Include some of it, not all. We should mention the committee investigation, including the comment from the congressman that the hearing might yield information about this June meeting, and the information about who testified. None of the other stuff, which is starting to resemble a game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon - such as, Fusion worked on a lawsuit that Veselnitskaya also worked on. I don't find Browder to have any relevance to this article, and we don't need play-by-play reports about the issuing and withdrawing of subpoenas, just the final result. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should mention the committee investigation, including the comment that the hearing might yield information about this June meeting... Might or might not; isn't this unverifiable speculation? I mean even Diane Feinstein said this is will not be the focus of the committee's questions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be speculation, but it's speculation by the people who have the power to request and/or subpoena testimony. Their comments about why they are requesting it can be relevant. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly relevant to the article and the length of the material is pretty much on target for DUE compliance. This whole thing almost assuredly doesn't pass WP:10YT, but if it's going to be a standalone article, the Fusion GPS investigation needs to be covered. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Not seeing anything that says Fusion has any direct link to the events of June 9, just six degrees of Natalia Veselnitskaya. Would be synth/undue to include here at this time. Darmokand (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Based on the reliable sources I have seen, the link is at best tangential. Of course, in the future there maybe a more substantial link, but we simply don't know yet.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is indeed very tangential, only as a mention, not as a real connection worth discussing here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that source. After reading it, I find nothing I haven't read before. As I wrote, the connection is very tangential: "That case put Simpson on the same side as the two Russians who met with Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner at Trump Tower in June 2016,..." Is there something else in that article which makes the connection stronger? Was he there? Did he provide research for that meeting? We can't include everyone who is related to someone at the meeting, or has the same interests and POV as those at the meeting, or whose grandmother once knew the grandmother of someone at the meeting. That source would be better used at the Fusion GPS article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer the NBC News article explains the connection quite well and it's not tangential - according to RS, it's about Russian government interference in a US election by paid agents who met with Trump Jr. et al to lobby for a repeal of the Magnitsky Act under the pretense they had dirt on Clinton. The connection to the meeting is again made in the WaPo article which states: "Grassley’s interest in Fusion GPS is not solely about the Magnitsky Act. On March 27, he wrote to Fusion GPS to demand information about the Steele dossier and the FBI’s relationship to Steele." The Magnitsky Act is the clear connection to the Trump Jr. meeting because Fusion GPS is connected to the lawyer and the lobbyist who attended the Trump Jr. meeting. Like everything else in this article, it's all based on speculation and allegations, but the Senate Judiciary meeting is as relevant to this article as are all the other allegations. In fact, I wouldn't object to this entire article being reduced to a single paragraph and merged with the main campaign article because the majority of it is based on allegations and conjecture, and it's not easy keeping WP:UNDUE out of it while still maintaining WP:BALANCE which the Senate Judiciary meeting actually helps provide. Atsme📞📧 16:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme: Special counsel Robert Mueller and his crew disagrees with your assertion that "this article, it's all based on speculation and allegations", so your attempt to discredit it and seeing "this entire article being reduced to a single paragraph" is not working. Please try something more constructive. Lklundin (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lklundin I didn't realize Mueller & crew were reading my assertions. They should have posted their disagreement to save you from speculation and conjecture. Atsme📞📧 19:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am still unconvinced that there is anything more than a tangential connection. Others here agree. I'm not changing my "oppose". Things may change in the future. If so, we can return to this subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...I'm stocking up on eggs.[FBDB]Atsme📞📧 19:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems a bit non-sequiturish to me. It takes a fair amount of mental gymnastics (which seems like OR/SYNTH) to tie this into the subject of this article. Something like this little pile of information seems to belong somewhere else, like an article on Simpson, on Fusion GPS, on Veselnitskaya, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, or on the Trump-Russia allegations. It seems too tangential for this article. Maybe even hold off on it entirely for any wiki article until some clear(er) allegation/connection is made.Softlavender (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Someone is going to be questioned belongs in a newspaper. If something comes of this, then it may also belong in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS. Objective3000 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it seems WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE speculation. Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The entire article should be deleted per NOTNEWS. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman - tried and failed - but I agree with you re:delete; possibly merge. Not going to happen anytime soon, so now it's about just trying to maintain some semblance of balance by including relevant information, although I liken it to a root canal. Atsme📞📧 18:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi all. I've received a RFC summons. I find myself in much agreement with the various notions against the material inclusion. This is because I also see the material as tangential, speculative and NOTNEWS. Perhaps the idea to possibly delete the article is worthy of further discussion. Know I neither oppose nor propose deletion. I do believe the idea is worth discussion. It is good to see the many thoughtful comments by so many contributors. And I fully understand the root canal analogy. Sorry for you.Horst59 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed text, support a short mention. This paragraph of text, if it belongs anywhere, should be at the Glenn R. Simpson page, not this one. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A lot more stuff has come to light regarding Fusion GPS and Simpson in relation to the Trump-Russia investigation overall since this RFC was opened. Therefore I think the information (and the new information I've seen -- don't ask me for sources; it's material I've seen posted on Twitter but I didn't save any relevant links, so someone would need to do a timeframe Google search to get the newest media reports) should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia (the Trump-Russia article, the article on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the article on Mueller's Special Council, etc.). I'm just not sure yet that it belongs in this article unless better context can be given that it specifically belongs here. Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2017 (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.
WP:NCE for article title
This article probably needs to have at least "2016 June" in the title, per WP:NCE. So, I dunno, "June 2016 Trump Campaign - Russian Lobbyist-or-lawyer-or-something Meeting (Trump Tower)"... maybe we should wait and see if this meeting gets a name that sticks. Lemme just throw a few throw out: The "I love it' Meeting, The "We Just Wanted to Adopt Hillary's Emails From Russia" Meeting; and "The Nyetburger Meeting". --AdamG (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are more then one, just make it meetings instead of meeting. All in one article.Casprings (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Trump–Veselnitskaya meeting. Short, unique, and to the point. We already have a redirect from Veselnitskaya meeting pointing here. — JFGtalk 12:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When Papadopoulos joined the campaign
@Enthusiast01: We have been differing over when Papadopoulos joined the Trump team. My sources all say it was in March, with one suggesting it was early March, and all sources agreeing that Trump announced him as a member of the foreign relations team on March 21 - so he obviously joined the team sometime before that. You have added to the article that there is "one source saying it was in May". That cannot possibly be right. The same Newsweek article you cited refers to him sending "internal campaign emails" in March and April. That article uses Papadopoulos's Linked-in account as its source for May - but that Linked-in account is notoriously wrong on a lot of things. Please self-revert your addition of "May" as it is contradicted by all other sources including Donald Trump himself. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it. It was one not so great Newsweek source claiming May, while all other sources suggest that he left the Carson campaign in Feb 2016 and joined Trump in March. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this edit, which was accompanied by this edit summary: "Revert wholesale removal, not removal of wiki links as stated in summary".
The new sentence jammed back into the lead is as follows: "Several members of the Trump campaign have been convicted or indicted as a result of these meetings, including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, and Paul Manafort."
When I removed it, this was my edit summary: "Rmv overlink, these people are discussed and wlinked later in lead. Gates & Manafort seem to be indicted for meeting and working with Ukrainians not Russians. Flynn was not indicted for meeting with Kislyak but for mischaracterizing the meeting, AFAIK." So the problem was not merely overlink. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Bannon says in explosive book
Seems like a headline grab for his new book. Give it a few days to see what sticks. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Bannon's opinions are not particularly noteworthy. I know the media is excited about this particular bit of sensationalism, but it's not really encyclopedic.- MrX 19:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
