Talk:Maria Butina

Knight IndustriesX2000, can you please explain your concerns about this edit? I was undoing disruptive, autobiographical edits by a sockpuppet IP account. Some of the added content was unduly promotional or supported only by unreliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You just deleted everything that someone did saying that it's all shit. I guess, YOU should explain you very aggressive behavior. Do you have any personal issues with the article or the person? Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not constructive. I explained why I mass-reverted, and I think I had pretty solid policy grounds for doing so. Now it's your turn to explain why you think the edits were good.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Not constructive" is mass-reverting. Address every issue, please. "This is all bad" is not an argument. You don't like the references? What references are bad? What sources? What statements are false? And, again, even if it's WP:AP, it is not against the rules. It's discouraged, but not forbidden. Argue over issues not over personalities. I don't care about the specific article, but you behavior is really mean and might need some measures to be taken. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my conduct, then take it up at my user talk. Refusing to discuss the content basis for your edits here is disruptive. The purpose of this page is to discuss content in order to improve the article, not to prolong personal spats. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! But you don't discuss the content, you mass-revert. This is disruptive. Mass-deletion of the content as "all shit" doesn't improve the article. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps referring to "all shit," not me. I said, "Some of the added content was unduly promotional or supported only by unreliable sources." Now it's your turn, or we're done here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What EXACTLY is promotional? Everything? That goes to your all shit list. That's not the way of improving the article. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to go through each and every item, nor do I have any obligation to if you're not going to go with me. So let's try baby steps. I'll describe one thing that should go and why, and then you describe one thing that should stay and why, ok? Firearms United is not a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

OK! Undo your mass-reverting, please, and let's correct the content. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No, now you identify one thing that should stay, and why. Or did you just login to Wikipedia to complain about my editing practices? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Here you go - "After finally being approved for a visa in 2014, Maria Butina attended the annual NRA Women's Leadership Luncheon as a guest of former NRA President Sandy Froman and participated in general meetings over the weekend as a guest of former NRA President David Keene.^[1] " - credible source, credible statement. Far away from "promotion".

Two problems here. First of all, it's questionable whether Townhall.com is reliable. There's no consensus in the RSN archives. Second, this is really not biographically noteworthy. So Butina attended a luncheon with Sandy Froman, so what? We already have enough content about her high-level contacts with the NRA. The source only includes this information to explain how the author got an interview with Butina. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like there is a false statement in the article now here "Also in 2011, while still Torshin's assistant, Butina founded a gun-rights organization, Right to Bear Arms, and began traveling back and forth to the U.S., initially with Torshin.[6]". She could not travel since 2011 with Torshin if she has not had a visa yet. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That sentence is supported by this reliable TIME source. Why do you think she didn't have a visa in 2011? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

And on the reliability of the source. It has not been stated as unreliable yet, so I would use it in certain cases, but not too much retrieve from it. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "retrieve," but the burden is on the editor seeking to include content to demonstrate that it's supported by a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It looked for me that you've suggested a dialog. I guess you're just mean by default. I think the latter sentence (may be in paraphrase) must be returned since now the article has a mistake in timeline. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the mistake? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Will need to be in the article: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/russian-national-charged-conspiracy-act-agent-russian-federation-within-united-states .Casprings (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

NY Times story: Woman Who Sought Secret Meeting for Trump and Putin Is Charged as Russian Agent https://nyti.ms/2NVn1CA?smid=nytcore-ios-share Casprings (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh snap. Erickson's next. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Would just like to mention, legally until convicted she is still just an alleged Russian agent. To state anything otherwise could be considered libel especially if she is found not guilty on these charges. --OKSDAHunter (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what the article says (and, looking through the history, appears to have said consistently since the bit about her being a Russian agent was added). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Should this be "Maria" or "Mariia"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Both are used in reliable sources. The DOJ uses Maria in their press release announcing the recent charges but "Mariia a/k/a Maria" in the actual affidavit. I updated the opening to include both names with references. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Evidently her legal name is Mariia, but the overwhelming majority of sources use Maria. So the first sentence should use Mariia per MOS:LEGALNAME, and the article should remain where it is per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know how we typically handle infoboxes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I would think we'd redirect to her legal name. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean move this page to Mariia Butina? That would go against WP:COMMONNAME. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be kept Maria Butina, too, per COMMONNAME. Further, in the first sentence of the intro, I think Maria should come first with Mariia as also spelled. If that's her birth name, it could be added in the birth name field of the infobox.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

We should stick to WP:COMMONNAME. Butina’s legal first name is Мария; in Russian, the letter "я" is pronounced ya as in yard. The prosecution’s court filings appear by to be using 'Modified Library of Congress' transliteration, i.e., "ia" (Modified LC). They don’t say why; maybe that's how the name was transliterated in her passport. When reporting the indictment some major outlets used the spelling "Mariia", but they seem have to gone back to using "Maria" by now. Another Мария/Maria of current fame on Wikipedia: Maria Sharapova; there doesn’t seem to have been any discussion in her case. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Her legal name is spelled in Cyrillic; that is clearly not the correct choice. I'm certainly not an expert, but the -iia transliteration strikes me as a hasty/rookie mistake: concatenating the transliterations for и and я without realizing that they're blended in pronunciation... and the goal of transliteration is to show how a name is pronounced, not to reproduce the quirks of the original spelling. As for which is more common, as one useful data point: "maria butina" gets 8,080,00 hits in a Google search, while "Mariia Butina" gets 368,000. In addition to Maria Sharapova, see also Maria Mironova, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, Maria Alyokhina. I agree that we should present "Maria" as the standard spelling, and suggest "Mariia" as "sometimes transliterated as". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe that the Russian gov recently changed the transliteration of the Cyrillic script to Latin, so the legal name would be Mariia (as in her passport / official DoJ docs), but the common name would be Maria. I recommend keeping the article where it is, i.e. Maria Butina. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

JzG, With this edit, cited content about Butina forming the Right to Bear Arms organization was removed. This disrupts the later cited content in the Gun rights section - and the organization's connection with members of the NRA.

It might not seem realistic, but 1) this is from someone who grew up in Siberia and hunted as a child and 2) how much of today's politics seems realistic? The true test is whether there are reliable sources for the information. New York Times, one of the sources, seems like a good start. See also this query of news sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's important to say that she founded Right to Bear Arms. It's verifiable, cited by a slew of secondary sources, and critical to an understanding of Butina's role in the influence operation. That said I don't have a problem with removing it from the infobox. It seems to me her primary organization is the Russian government, not Right to Bear Arms. Something I read recently suggested that the organization was just a tool used to help Butina gain access to the NRA. I'm sorry I don't remember what source that was, probably in the NY Times. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I could go either way about the infobox. Right to Bear Arms was used as the entree to the NRA - and how she developed relationships with them and conservative Republicans. But, I agree that it's essentially a front. As long as it stays in the intro, I'm good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

DrFleischman has put his finger on it. The idea that a young woman could found a genuine grassroots gun rights group in Russia is implausible. When you combine it with her known status as a Russian intelligence asset, characterising it as agun rights group rather than a front group becomes seriously problematic. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so it sounds like you don't have an issue with the Right to Bear Arms org being in the article, your issue seems to be how it's characterized (a legitimate gun's rights organizations vs. a front). I think there are probably sources out there that state that it was a front.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-whitewashed-the-wiki-of-alleged-russian-spy-maria-butina^[1] [Note: added more detailed ref & related - hope this helps in some way - iac - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)]

Should anything be done?FusionLord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The edits of concern occurred in March and April of this year. They don't appear to have resumed since then. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I wondered about that. But it's weird that the article is dated today if it occurred months ago.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The account (Caroline456 only made a few edits to this article and they've all been reverted or rewritten to remove whitewashing. I made one final reversion today. Most of the edits were at Paul Erickson (activist) and there's been extensive discussion at that talk page.

At this point the best thing we can do is keep our eyes open for potential whitewashing. –dlthewave ☎ 16:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. By the way, an IP user posted on User talk:Caroline456 about there being hidden categories If you take a look at the bottom of your talk page here during an edit you'll see that your talk page is a member of "2 hidden categories". Ohhh. Spooky. Wikipedia is a labyrinth and a house of mirrors. Just remember you can easily kick down these walls and shatter these mirrors and nothing "hidden" here is hidden well. Funny.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue went away months ago, and I don't expect further problems while Butina is incarcerated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Found this article about this page.^[1] It was also mentioned on The Rachel Maddow Show last night. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same link at the top of this section. I saw Maddow, too. She was focusing on misinformation, hopefully others caught that it was fixed awhile ago.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Maddow did misunderstand the Daily Beast article. She didn't catch that it was months ago, and she kept saying “those two pages have been scrubbed”, “you won’t find this information there”, “it’s all gone”. I sent an email to her site about this, pointing out that regular Wikipedia editors immediately restored the edits and accused the editors of COI. But she must get thousands of emails a day and I doubt if she will do a correction. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I thought when she said it was scrubbed she meant that it was fixed. I thought she said something about the beauty of Wikipedia is that people watch it... or something like that. Anyway, it wasn't clear and I thought there might be misunderstandings. Thanks for sending the email!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Melanie, it was rather misleading. She did say something about "the beauty of Wikipedia is that everything can be restored" but she neglected to say that it was restored. I do nitpick your characterization that the material was "immediately restored." I battled "Caroline" on the talk pages for some time. And btw I give myself a bit of a self-congratulatory pat on the back for doing most of the investigatory legwork for the story. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

1. PLEASE CHANGE "Involvement in U.S. politics Gun rights" section TO "Involvement in U.S. politics National Rifle Association (NRA)"

2. PLEASE CHANGE: "Contents 1 Early life and education 2 Career 3 Involvement in U.S. politics 3.1 Gun rights" TO: "Contents 1 Early life and education 2 Career 3 Involvement in U.S. politics 3.1 National Rifle Association (NRA)"

THANK YOU. 172.58.184.80 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment - It may be that there is a better heading, but it's not just about the NRA, it's also about the Right to Bear Arms organization.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The content is almost exclusively about the NRA, and the Right to Bear Arms stuff can be seen as merely an entree into the NRA. I'm okay with changing the heading as requested. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done I agree that this is a better section title, and I have changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't this entry mention anything about Butina's cohabiting with Erickson and attempting to use sex to get a job with someone else, according to FBI reports that were widely reported in WP:RS, including the New York Times?

I think the reason for its relevance is obvious, but it's not the job of WP editors to make that judgment.

It's the job of WP:RSs to make that judgment, and according to the policy WP:WEIGHT, we include it when it's prominently reported in multiple WP:RSs. Which it is. --Nbauman (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think no one's gotten around to adding it. Go for it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" group appears to be ru:Право на оружие (движение), although движение translates to "movement" presumably "social movement" (ru:Общественное движение (социология)). The Russian article while may be RS, I have my concerns as this topic involves geopolitical foreign influence. If I don't get a response, I will add, and see what happens. X1\ (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's nice that there's an article about the topic, but it's a bit confused. Is it about "The right to arms (movement)" generally... or "Right to Bear Arms" organization specifically? I think with a bit of editing it could be made clearer that there is a movement, led by the Right to Bear Arms organization.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I know Google Translate isn't the most reliable source, but the translation makes it quite clear that the Russian article is about the Right to Bear Arms organization specifically. –dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For me the confusion is that that title is Gun rights (movement) instead of "Right to Bear Arms" and the organization is sometimes referred to as a movement. Like I said, a couple of edits should clear it up.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I took a stab at posting a suggestion at the article page –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What she is actually charged with should be clarified.

From Lawfare: No, Mariia Butina Wasn’t Charged With Violating FARA Geo8rge (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed a link to The Maria Butina Legal Expense Fund from the infobox. My reasoning is that a fundraising site is not appropriate to include in the infobox. The removal was reverted by Geo8rge, so I would like to discuss it here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• The Maria Butina webpage is really about her legal issues, she is not otherwise noteworthy. Perhaps this article should be renamed after the lawsuit.
• The website is her only web presence, and the website is devoted to her legal issues, which is what she is notorious for and the reason for the existence of this Wikipedia page. Is there a better website?Geo8rge (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• She is not getting the funds, all the funds are controlled by a trustee.Geo8rge (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Other peoples' websites, such as politicians have donation areas.Geo8rge (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Ideally both sides to the legal dispute would have equal footing on a Wikipedia page dealing with that dispute, but in this case the other party to the dispute is 'The People of the USA' who don't really need a website and as far as I can tell the DOJ is not going to set up their own 'Prosecution of Maria Butina' webpage for this specific case. Geo8rge (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• I would recommend using the DOJ language to name the article. Suggested article name: The prosecution of Maria Butina for acting as an unregistered Agent of the Russian Federation Within the United States an offense against Title 18, United States Code, Section 951, in violation of Title l8 United States Code, Section 371 (unfortunately the exact section of US code she is said to have violated is necessary as much of the media coverage claims it was a different violation against FARA)Geo8rge (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement to fill every field of the infobox, and it may be best to leave this one blank if the subject does not maintain a web presence that is suitable for a link. The Legal Expense Fund is purely a fundraising effort and provides only minimal information about the legal situation. –dlthewave ☎ 22:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"The Legal Expense Fund is purely a fundraising effort and provides only minimal information about the legal situation." I don't understand your point. The website was created by her or her agents and is the only web presense belonging to her I could find. I think it is reasonable to assume it was created by her or her agents and represents her wishes and is the best she or her agents could put together. Why not accept that? I do not see that Wikipedia has an rule about what should be in a personal website. The only common sense rule would be her website should be the website she wants people to know is her web presence. The website on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Ocasio-Cortez' campaign website, which is mostly devoted to fund raising, attracting volunteers and getting people's email addresses, which is fine with me as long as that is Ocasio Cortez intention. Other than size and sophistication what is the differnence between fund raising websites Ocasio2018.com and MariaButinaDefensefund.com ?Geo8rge (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've opened a discussion at External links noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 03:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the info box of distric court cases. I was unable to get the image to load automatically and entered it's address and size manually. I suggest getting the image to load automatically before using the infobox. I would also suggest the current Maria Butina personal infobox be retained so as not to make the article biased against the defendant by only including a prosecutorial infobox.

Quick facts United States of America v. Maria Butina, Court ...

United States of America v. Maria Butina
Court	United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Full case name	United States of America v. Mariia Butina also knorm as Maria Butina
Defendant	Maria Butina
Plaintiff	United States of America
Citation	18 U.S.C. § 951.
Court membership
Judge sitting	DEBORAH A. ROBINSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Close

Geo8rge (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I just removed it, as it forces the article title to appear in italics. Remember, this page is about Butina the person, not her court case. WP:COATRACK applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I resolved the italics issue by adding the "italic title=no" parameter. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm adding it here too, so the talk page doesn't appear in italics. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A recent edit (diff) added a Computer Fraud and Security Bulletin source published in January 1990, supporting the statement When Maria Butina was first arrested prosecutors accused her of using sex to gain power in a manner similar the 2018 spy thriller Red Sparrow. I don't have access to the source, so could somebody please explain how the 1990 source relates to 2018 events? Am I missing something here? –dlthewave ☎ 19:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the source and statement. –dlthewave ☎ 15:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. I updated with one of the many Red Sparrow references to Maria Butina. Geo8rge (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Brief descriptions of the prosecutor and defense attorney have been added twice now. My opinion is that these individuals are irrelevant to Butina's biography and, if anything, we should simply mention their names in the section about the lawsuit. –dlthewave ☎ 00:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The article should be renamed USA v Butina, as Maria Butina does not merit a Wikipeida page. Virtually all coverage of Butina is related to a criminal case, not her achievements. Coverage not related to USA v Butina tends to be salacious pictures of her and salacious discussions of her sexuality, none of which merit an article except in the context of criminal charges against her, that is USA v Butina. If Butina murdered one or more people the article would be about the crime, such as The shooting of ..., not Maria Butina and would deal with the criminal proceedings with a comparatively small biography of the defendant. I am not clear why an exception is being made in this case. As for the details of the criminal case, that is what most of the media and google searches turn up at this point. That is not me cherry picking that is google cherry picking. Her only source of notoriety is at this point allegedly being an agent of a foreign government and allegedly being required but failing to register under usc 951, which is currently the subject of USA v Butina. If you want to split the article into Maria Butina and USA v Butina. To sum up I am posting about USA v Butina because that is what google searches turn up at the moment. Stuff like the identities of the code section citations, Judge, plantiff and defense are what would be in an article about a criminal case. Defense Attorny Driscoll in particular has been in the news, and the prosecutor requested he be gagged, which seems noteworthy, is gagging a defense attorney of Driscoll's caliber normal? I am not hunting down obscure references, I am just citing the first pages of a google search.Geo8rge (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a biographical article of Butina, who clearly surpasses WP:BLP1E for her significant role in a significant ongoing event. We don't need the names and details of the lawyers arguing her case on such a page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"significant ongoing event" the ongoing event is USA v Butina. To be honest Butina seems to have about the same status as a drug mule, all that is noteworthy is the actual criminal case USA v Butina. Geo8rge (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. She was (allegedly) a go-between in the Russian collusion/election interference. USA v. Butina is only a piece of the puzzle. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

What does allegedly mean? Is it possible she wasn't? We are back to discussing USA v Butina. But again the current state of the charges is she failed to register, not that she was a go between, which is apparently legal for a registered agent of a foreign government.Geo8rge (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine, she was allegedly an unregistered go-between. I added "allegedly" because she hasn't been convicted (yet), and she is "innocent until proven guilty". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove red links. ColinSheffer (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:REDLINK. Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished. If there's a specific red link you feel should be removed or redirected under that guideline, please point it out. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The 'unreliable source' is Slate which is normally considered reliable. The charge is murky and difficult to understand as evidenced by the inability of journalists to report that she has been charged with failing to register as a foreign agent under one specific section of the USC, which is distinct from espionage. I repeat she has not, as of yet, been charged or accused with espionage.

The McClatchy article about the visits from Russian officials is poorly informed, for example, the article falsely claims "Butina is charged with being an in-plain-sight Russian agent" which sounds like espionage. I did not remove the edit, even though I think the source does not understand the issue, as the edit was properly sourced. Wikipedia does not permit independent research, but I will point out that a search on her Russian name brings up many links implying she is still an important story in Russia possibly explaining why Russian diplomats are making consular visits. I personally think questioning consular visits is dangerous given Americans often need such assistance when they have legal difficulties.

The editor that made these edits claims: "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia". So I didn't bother them with the issue. Geo8rge (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No, we can't call her a spy. We can't even call her an "alleged spy" because there were no formal allegations made, only informal ones. (Anybody can allege anything). This is a biography of a living person, and we have to protect Wikipedia's reputation as well as hers. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. It imposes strong WP:RS requirements, but it doesn't impose specific ones - that is to say, if she's called a spy (or an alleged spy) in multiple high-quality, mainstream, reliable publications, in a WP:SUSTAINED manner, then we not only can but are required to reflect that here. We don't have to (and in fact are not allowed to) wait for some "formal allegations", whatever you mean by that. We do have to be careful about who is saying what, but if someone is widely described as a spy in reliable sources, we are required to reflect that in our articles - WP:NPOV and WP:TONE mean "reflect the coverage available in the best sources, with particularly strict adherence to the best sources for WP:BLPs", not "reflect only formal allegations made by the US government" (which is what I assume you're waiting on and which, obviously, is unlikely to happen under the current administration given the politics involved.) Note that since she is clearly a public figure, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply, only the standard increased sourcing requirements (ie. multiple independent mainstream publications calling her an alleged spy, in a context that makes it clear that this is the most notable thing about her, means we are required to reflect that in our article.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe, though, that the use of alleged means there is some doubt that Butina was actually a spy, and I don't think we should allow this doubtful quality to be reflected in Wikipedia. I'm removing the description again because we are now in the Discussion phase of WP:Bold, revert, discuss, as I am sure you will agree when you examine the history, and no WP:Concensus has been reached. Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that argument makes any sense. The allegations against her are patiently and unambiguously the main source of her notability - I don't think there's any reasonable way to argue against that. And there's no policy saying that we should avoid describing uncertainty, when it is well-documented; if someone is mainly famous for an allegation against them, and it otherwise passes WP:BLP (ie. they're not a low-profile individual), then it goes in their article. To remove "alleged spy", you need to assert that the fact that there are allegations that she is a spy is in serious doubt, or that the coverage of it is insufficient to the point where it fails WP:DUE. It is not our role to doubt accusations or to perform original research by saying "well, there's some doubt that she is a spy, so this should not get coverage"; our job is to say "what do reliable sources say about her?" Allegations about a public figure that get substantial coverage in reliable sources always go in their biographies, with weight and prominence appropriate to its coverage. You must present a policy-based argument; "there is some doubt" has no grounding in policy whatsoever. EDIT: Also, reviewing the edit history, at least four people have recently added or restored material calling her either a spy or an alleged spy (here, here, here, and here, with one going so far as to remove "alleged"), with you as the only person objecting. Even if most of them haven't participated in talk, that's still a (very loose and rough) consensus, so it ought to remain in the article for now. --Aquillion (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Is it sufficient to call her an "agent" or "secret agent"? She hasn't been charged with espionage, which is typically what a "spy" would be charged with. Personally, I am fine with either term, though "agent" does seem more accurate. Otherwise, I agree with your logic for inclusion.Websurfer2 (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

What charge did she actually admit now? The article says it's the 18 U.S.C. §951, but that would mean a maximum of ten years in prison, not five. Here the plea deal document is quoted: “Your client agrees to plead guilty to count 1 in the indictment, charging your client with conspiracy to violate 18 USC § 951, in violation of 18 USC § 371.” To me that means she violated §371 when she conspired in order to violate §951, but she did not violate §951 (that violation of §951 was just planned, but not committed). That would also make much more sense to me as a plea deal since the maximum punishment for a violation of §371 is only half of that of §951. Sources like also state that she conspired with Russian officials to infiltrate the conservative movement as an agent. That matches the mentioned quote, since the infiltration as an agent was only planned (and that plan is the conspiration). --Gamba (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed these:

• Elena Miller, another alleged spy; this is not the place to list spies in general, only if related more strongly to this wp article
• Anna Chapman; just because Chapman is a Russian intelligence agent doesn't mean they two are related strongly enough to be listed here
• Donald Heathfield; just because Heathfield was a KGB and SVR operative until his disclosure in the United States (Illegals Program) in 2010, doesn't mean they two are related strongly enough to be listed here, again this is not the place for List of Russian spies (Is there a "list" article page in wp somewhere?)
• Jack Barsky, KGB agent who spied on the United States from 1978–88, not closely connected
• Sleeper agent, Butina not a "sleeper", she was active and open
• Illegals Program, how is this directly connected?
• Resident spy, if you think Butina fits this term, put it in the article with a reference
• Salt (2010 film), this is fiction and not related enough
• The Americans, this is fiction and not related enough

X1\ (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In light of the recent NSA dumps by Gabbard, This article needs to be completely rewritten and I think there needs to be a serious discussion on Wikipedia approved sources because there is a comical denial of reality by the Corporate Press on what is in the documents on the DNI site. 104.9.235.43 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn: can you give RSs as to why these are directly related to this person? I understanding the broad connection, and how a wp:Reader may possibly be interested in those too. But as far as I know, they are a stretch, and some more so than others. X1\ (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• @X1: All wiki-links fall under same basic topic of Russian sleepers, and "may possibly" be interested is exactly what makes reading Wikipedia so interesting. Many readers may not know about these other people, etc., and think, "Oh, let me read about that, too!" In which case, I would ask you to restore them, please. Aboudaqn (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Aboudaqn here and i made the same comment before here. Same issues at play involving same type of actors. We can debate about the merit of each link but per this discussion i have restored the list in full. I will respectfully ask that you do not revert this as there are now more people who disagree with your proposal to remove the see also links. Flickotown (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with X1\, these persons and fictions (Jack Barsky, Salt (2010 film)...) have not been connected by RS to this person, and so don't belong here (WP:OR and WP:UNDUE).-- Tobby72 (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The related Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections has been called a "political pearl harbor", "an act of war" (Dick Cheney, example), the "most successful covert operation in history" (Michael Hayden), and Michael Morell compares it with 9/11. This is a deadly serious topic. Why include unrelated fiction? Why did you even pick these from the vast genre of spies? Why pick just these actual spies? Please keep on BRD. X1\ (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn:@X1\: I agree with X1's sentiment. The fiction links are questionable since this is a biography of a living person and those topics do not directly relate to Butina. If she appeared as a character, they would definitely belong. Links to other known Russian agents should be fine but challengeable on a per-link basis. Topics on the various types of Russian agents definitely belong. However, I also agree that I have found many interesting things in Wikipeda by following random links in See Also sections. Maybe the links should be segregated into appropriately titled subsections to make clear they are not directly related to Butina? Websurfer2 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This is covered by that guideline. I too agree, but my personal inclination would be to include Chapman and the TV series. The latter is a fiction, but insightful in describing state of mind of such agents. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A recent article in New Republic contains some insightful analysis as well as some quotes from interviews with the subject. This one struck me:

"I didn’t know it became a crime to have good relations with Russia—now it's a crime. They hate me in Russia, because they think I’m an American spy. And here they think I’m a Russian spy. If I’m a spy, I’m the worst spy you could imagine."^[1]

~Anachronist (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It could be useful, but we don't want to buy into her spin. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No, but the article buys into (or at least reports) the views of others. I'm not recommending we quote her, but that article's analysis would be useful to incorporate here. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Anachronist, agreed. I haven't read it yet but I recommend you WP:BEBOLD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Seconded that we shouldn't uncritically recount anything she said as an individual. "I didn’t know it became a crime to have good relations with Russia" is a heckuva way of pussyfooting around "I pled guilty of conspiring with Russian officials to infiltrate the Republican Party." GMG^talk 21:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Her description of what she was doing is notable, regardless of how other people frame it. She maintains that she did not work for the Russian government, and I don't think that that's actually part of what she plead to. She plead to lobbying for the interests of the Russian government without filing the proper paperwork, and the theory is that you don't have to work for a government to lobby on its behalf. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The lede already explains Butina's conviction. Adding in "convicted felon" to the first sentence comes across as very non-neutral. It's not who she is - it's a fact about her life that's explained a few sentences later. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that "convicted felon" is non-neutral. It is arguably the most notable thing about the subject. Ponydepression (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not who she is. It doesn't even describe anything about her being an unregistered lobbyist. It just labels her a criminal, without any further information. Maria Butina was famous for her gun-rights activism before she was accused of lobbying without first registering. She's known for both things, and any description of her trial and conviction should be careful and neutral. As it is now, the lede prominently describes both aspects of her life. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Mariia's so called gun rights activism was itself never anything more than a cover for the espionage that led to her felony conviction in the first place.

First, her claim to being a gun-rights activist is no longer her main source of notability; it doesn't make sense to use that as the main part of the lead. Second, her previous activity and our personal interpretation of what that means notwithstanding, US prosecutors have dismissed that self-description, describing it as a cover and saying that But it was all a ruse, federal prosecutors say, a cover for Ms. Butina to advance Russia’s agenda within the Republican Party. We have to make it clear that her self-identification as (primarily) a gun-rights activist is contested; we can't present it as established fact when we have such a high-profile source disagreeing with it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources describe her as a gun-rights activist. For example:

• "Maria Butina: Russian gun activist in US conspiracy case" -BBC
• "A Russian gun rights activist serving a U.S. prison sentence for acting as an unregistered foreign agent has released a video asking for money to help pay her legal costs." -Associated Press
• "A federal judge sentenced the Russian gun-rights activist Maria Butina to 18 months in prison on Friday, after she tried to infiltrate US conservative groups and the National Rifle Association to promote Russian political interests around the 2016 election." -The Guardian
• "Attorneys for Maria Butina and U.S. prosecutors have jointly asked a federal judge to order the gun-rights activist deported to her native Russia after she is sentenced on April 26 for conspiring with a senior Russian official to infiltrate conservative American groups as an undeclared agent for the Kremlin." -LA Times

This is a very common way for news articles to introduce her.

"US prosecutors have dismissed that self-description": US prosecutors made a whole number of claims about her, some of which turned out to be false. For example, they claimed that her relationship with Paul Erickson was a deliberate cover. The judge severely criticized the prosecution for misrepresenting evidence to support that claim:

But the judge also had a warning for prosecutors in the case, who recently acknowledged they had misinterpreted messages between Butina and a friend to make the false claim that she was trying to trade sex for a job. [...]

"It took me approximately five minutes to read those emails and tell that they were jokes," Chutkan said. "It was apparent on its face."

Chutkan said she was "concerned" that officials at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., and the Justice Department would read the exchanges and somehow find otherwise.

-NPR

It's important to keep in mind that the prosecution is an unreliable primary source, only to be used with extreme caution. It's better to avoid them in favor of reliable secondary sources. It is the prosecutors' job to build a case, and they should not be confused with impartial reporters. The prosecutors claimed that Butina was not a real gun-rights activist, but reliable secondary sources frequently refer to her as such. The reliable sources are what we go with. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel that we can reasonably go with an assertion, in the lead, that implicitly disputes the prosecution. Beyond that, the lead needs to go with what she is most notable for; the sources you quoted above are out of date. Here's what she's notable for today:

• : ...accused Russian agent Maria Butina, headline. An attorney for Maria Butina -- the accused Russian agent who was sentenced to 18 months in prison earlier this year..., first sentence.
• Russian foreign agent Maria Butina
• Russian agent Maria Butina, U.S. prosecutors ask judge for her deportation, headline.
• Accused Russian spy Maria Butina, headline; similar in first sentence.
• Russian Agent Maria Butina, headline.
• Maria Butina, Russian agent who conspired to infiltrate NRA, headline.
• Also note the skepticism here: Described by some as a Russian “spy,” Butina, 30, was actually a master networker -- a woman who used her purported interest in gun rights to facilitate meetings with NRA officials and prominent figures in the Republican party.

She is mostly famous today as an (accused) Russian agent. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Two editors have removed the fact that Butina is a gun-rights activist who founded "Right to Bear Arms." Their rationale is that this was supposedly a "cover story" used to "infiltrate" the NRA. I have to seriously question how familiar these people are with Butina's case, because this shows a very basic misunderstanding of what she was accused of. Butina was not a covert agent. She had no "cover." The accusation was that she was lobbying - very publicly - without properly registering. She didn't "infiltrate" the NRA. Making up stories about infiltration and cover stories and writing them into edit summaries is a very serious BLP violation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

She is a convicted felon, she pled guilty to conspiracy to act as a foreign agent (i.e. an agent of influence), as described in nearly all sources. She is known for that, not for being an "activist" in any capacity. So, I think this can/should be included to the lead, but not in the first phrase ("She is an activist"). My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a covert agent and what she was accused of being. "Foreign agent" here is just a legal term denoting a person who does lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. It's actually even more subtle than that, because there's no indication that Butina actually worked for the Russian government. She's considered to be lobbying on their behalf, because the things she's lobbying for would presumably benefit Russia. She had no "cover." That's something that covert agents have. Her lobbying activities were all out in the open, and she actively publicized them on social media.

Butina definitely is known as a gun-rights activist. She was fairly well known even before the accusations of unregistered lobbying. She founded what I think is the most influential gun-rights group in Russia (which has much stricter gun laws than the US). She's regularly described as a "gun-rights activist" in the media, as I showed in an above section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree we should mention in the lead her involvement in the Russian organization because this is obviosly important for her story . She is just not known (in English language sources) primarily as an "activist". Many agents of influence work openly, not undercover, but anyway we do not say it in the lead (even though she is a classic agent of influence). The Russian organization, well, it was created after personal permission by Putin . What it did? Well, as source tells, "In December 2015, the NRA sent another delegation to Moscow to meet with Butina’s group. Keene went on that trip, too, along with then-NRA First Vice President Pete Brownell, who soon became NRA president, and Joe Gregory, chairman of NRA’s Golden Ring of Freedom, according to tweets from Torshin, other Russian officials and public records. An NRA committee member and surrogate, then-Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, also attended, and later disclosed in public reports that Right to Bear Arms paid $6,000 of his travel expenses.". So, that "Russian NRA" is basically a front organization - as Anders Aslund said My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It is normal for news articles to refer to her as a "gun-rights activist" - again, I showed this above.

I'm disturbed by your misrepresentation of the Russian source you claim shows Vladimir Putin personally approved the founding of Butina's organization. A simple Google translation clearly shows that what you cited is a petition written by Butina's group to Putin calling for gun legalization. It does not suggest that Putin personally approved the group's founding. You speak Russian, but I (and most enwiki editors) don't, so I would expect you to be careful to correctly summarize Russian-language sources you cite. Unfortunately, my experience is that you don't. Over at Useful Idiot, recall that you falsely claimed a Russian-language text was quoting Lenin. It was only after I went through and transcribed the Cyrillic and put it into Google translate that I realized you had made up the entire idea of the text quoting Lenin, and it was actually obvious the text was quoting Andrei Sinyavsky. Please stop misrepresenting Russian-language sources.

It's also disturbing to me that you keep referring to Butina using terms like "agent of influence" and "cover." These are BLP violations. There is no indication that she worked for the Russian government, and asserting that she did is a serious accusation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, I never misinterpreted any Russian language sources, not here and not on the page "Useful Idiot" (the expression "„полезный идиот“ does exist in Russian language for a very long time as a matter of fact, but who was the author, Radek or Lenin, is debatable). WP:NPA please. Note, this talk page exist only to discuss improvement of the article. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You stated that there were quotation marks in the source because it was quoting Lenin. I can barely read Cyrillic letters, let alone read any Russian, but even I was able to figure out that the person being quoted was Sinyavsky, not Lenin. You misrepresented that source, and you're at it again here. The Russian-language source you linked to does not say what you claim it says. It in no way implies that Butina's gun-rights group "was created after personal permission by Putin." Stop inventing claims about what Russian-language sources say. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The linked source only supports such claim, but it does not say it directly, and I never said that it did. Once again, I did not misrepresent any sources. If you want to continue, please go to an appropriate noticeboard, but you will not because you know that I did not. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• She pled guilty to conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent for Russia. She tried to infiltrate US conservative groups and the National Rifle Association to promote Russian political interests around the 2016 election. She has admitted to working as a Russian agent to infiltrate an influential gun rights group and to conspiring with a senior Russian official to infiltrate conservative American political circles by acting as an undeclared agent for the Kremlin. This is what the sources say; saying that there is no indication that she was working on behalf of the Russian government seems a bit weird. If you're unhappy with that and somehow think using these sources is a WP:BLP violation, take it to WP:BLPN. --Aquillion (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources say infiltrate, as I demonstrated above. We have to go with what they say. Also, more recent sources (after her confession) generally describe her as some variation on "(accused) Russian agent" or "(accused) spy", often without the "accused" - simply stating it as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you specifically questioned it, here's the sources using the term 'infiltrate' (that, or some comparable term, must go in the lead, since it's clearly central to her notability at this point):

• 30-year-old spy Maria Butina will be sentenced in April for conspiring to infiltrate the NRA on behalf of Russia, headline; Maria Butina, who has admitted to working as a Russian agent to infiltrate an influential gun rights group and make inroads with US conservative activists and Republicans, body.
• Maria Butina: 'covert Russian agent' will plead guilty over effort to infiltrate NRA
• Maria Butina sentenced to 18 months for trying to infiltrate US right and NRA
• Maria Butina, Russian who conspired to infiltrate NRA, to be sentenced April 26

I feel like you calibrated your position and arguments on this before she pled guilty, and haven't really examined the tone of coverage since then. Older sources - while she was still insisting on her innocence - are more cautious, describing it as an allegation; newer ones are not. Regardless of your own personal interpretation of events or what you think her guilty plea means, we have to go with the way the sources summarize it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I completely agree with your arguments and edits on the page and disagree with T. . Of course the NRA must be in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I actually found that the reporting was more sensational before Butina's plea deal than it is now. Back then, a lot of newspapers were credulously repeating the prosecutors' claims, many of which turned out to be false (e.g., the "red sparrow" story). Still, some of the reporting you cite is inaccurate. For example, Butina did not plead to trying to "infiltrate" the NRA, and there's no indication whatsoever that she did anything of the sort. She pled to attending NRA conferences and inviting NRA officials to visit her group in Russia - activities that have nothing to do with "infiltration," which is the process of surreptitiously placing secret agents into an organization.

It's also very important to be careful about what is meant by "agent" in this case. This is legal jargon, and it has a very different meaning from how laypeople understand the word "foreign agent." What it does not mean is "covert agent." Butina did not plead to any covert activities. In layman's terms, what she pled to was publicly lobbying for and advocating better relations between the US and Russia, without informing the US government that she was acting as a lobbyist.

As I said before, there's no indication she actually worked for the Russian government. It has been well known for many years that Torshin has acted as Butina's mentor, not least of all because he publicly attended many events with her. That is not the same as working for the Russian government, and she didn't plead to the latter. She pled to advocating better relations, which would benefit Russian interests.

What I'm most concerned about in your edits is that you've removed all mention of the thing that originally made Butina famous, and which is a major part of her biography (the fact that she founded Russia's most prominent gun-rights organization), and that you've selectively picked the most sensational (and inaccurate) wording to describe her relationship with the NRA ("infiltrate"), strongly implying to the reader that she was a covert agent, which is not the case. Both of those things are serious BLP issues.

Finally, I'll just point out that what is by far the most in-depth reporting on Maria Butina's case to date, a lengthy article published in The New Republic, is hardly cited anywhere in this Wiki article (and only for a trivial fact). -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Was she a Covert agent in the meaning commonly used in US? No, and the page does not say it. Did she work for the Russian government? Yes, certainly, as follows from her own admission. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Paul Erickson, Russian Agent Maria Butina’s Boyfriend, Pleads Guilty to Fraud; Erickson admits he conned someone called only “D.G.” into wiring him $100,000, under the pretense that the money was for a real estate investment in North Dakota. It was not. (Nov. 19, 2019; Betsy Swan, and Erin Banco) TheDailyBeast.com

X1\ (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"She grew up in the Siberian taiga—large boreal forests—where her father introduced her to guns and taught her to hunt.[12] Butina said: "It is a rare Siberian who can imagine himself without a rifle in the home."[21]"

It appears B. grew up in a city of more than 600,000 people, surrounded by "steppe," not forest. Note 12 merely asserts that her father "taught her to shoot," not hunt. The cited material doesn't describe the scene of her childhood as "forest."

Note 21 may be accurate but it appears to be hyperbole. Reasonable sources suggest Russia gun ownership at 6.5% of population, vs. 37% U.S.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:A5E8:57B6:C1E5:657A (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed Removed both sentences. R2 (bleep) 18:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFLKm4Q78sg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2A08:EA00:5D4E:B866:F6BD:A6A8 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to this article: in which city of Russia she is based. The timeline states that she was deported to Moscow in 2019, but I don't think she lives in Moscow. If she lives in Barnaul, the article should state this.

173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is Donald Trump mentioned in this article since there is absolutely no connection between this woman and Donald Trump? 2601:44:0:E660:5147:E25E:9CAF:DCBC (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Because reliable sources (RS) mention her connection to the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts to help him win the election. She was one part of that effort, with special focus on the NRA, where Russian money was illegally funneled into the campaign. We just document what RS say. They make the connection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)