This discussion is also being discussed at WP:RNI
To stop an edit war, I am starting this section about the #Conspiracy vs collusion section.
Unfortunately, back in November 2024, Politrukki made a long series of edits that introduced misleading wording that was not corrected immediately, thus introducing this false statement made by many RS: "Mueller did not find collusion between Trump campaign and Russia." Before their edits, the section started with this explainer:
- Mueller used "coordination" and "conspiracy" in a synonymous fashion as he looked for evidence of agreed coordination, not just a mutual understanding ("two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests").[1] Mueller expressly explained why he was not interested in proving mere collusion, which he, for the purposes of his investigation, determined was not the same as "conspiracy". There had to be "coordination", which implies a conscious "agreement".
I corrected Politrukki's misleading wording here and wrote: "Mueller was unable to prove that the 2016 Trump campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia and did not focus on "collusion"."
Later, we have recent efforts by Yodabyte (see their edit summary) and PackMecEng that undermine the point of that section. We need to (1) avoid using RS when they make false statements and (2) restore the point of the section, which shows that a failure to prove "conspiracy" is not the same as a finding of "no collusion". They are two very different animals.
We are dealing with the contrast between Mueller's clear finding and false claims about what Mueller found:
- Mueller: the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
- Others: Mueller found "no collusion" with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Those "others" (Barr and many RS) include many careless writers in RS. Unlike Mueller, who treated "conspiracy" and "collusion" differently, many RS did not notice that difference and have made false claims that Mueller said there was "no collusion". (In fact, Mueller found myriad forms of collusion, open and secret cooperation, and secretive contacts between the campaign and Russian officials and literal spies over a long period of time. We know that Trump's personal election planning with Russians started at least as early as the Nov. 2013 Moscow trip. There he was filmed sitting with some of those who were later convicted (they bragged about their roles!) for their involvement in the 2016 election interference, and the election focus of what they talked about was revealed by Yulia Alferova (Yulya Klyushina) on January 22, 2014.[2][3]: 396 )
This is all similar to the "no collusion" misrepresentations made by Attorney General William Barr in the Barr letter. They are described here (bold added):
In another case, Barr misrepresented Mueller’s approach to the question of collusion. During his press conference on Thursday, Barr said that Mueller found "no collusion," "no underlying collusion," and "no evidence" of "collusion."
"There was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government's hacking," Barr said, later adding, "There was, in fact, no collusion."
But the very beginning of Mueller's report makes it clear the special counsel did not evaluate whether there was collusion, because "collusion" is not a federal crime or a commonly used legal term.
Instead, the report evaluates whether there was "conspiracy" — a criminal act — or "coordination," which it defined as an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia on Russian interference in the elections. (The report did state that the investigation did not establish coordination.)[4]
When we have a clear contradiction and false statements made by RS, we use common sense and do not feature their false statements. We do not blindly apply "We go by RS, so if RS say that we say that." (PackMecEng) It is not original research to make clear the contrast when Mueller and many RS explain that contrast. The section under discussion does exactly that, and the current wording changes by Yodabyte and PackMecEng undermine the purpose of the section and favor a false claim made by many RS. We do not feature RS when they get it wrong. We need to get back to the original introduction statement (above) or something similar but better.
I challenge anyone to find any statement by Mueller that says or implies "no collusion" (a frequent Trumpian false claim: "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!"). Any RS that says "no collusion" has gotten it wrong, and we should not perpetuate that misunderstanding.
We can deal with this issue much better, and these sources explain the issues quite well.[4][5][6][7][8] Using the Vox[4] quote in the quotebox above would be a good place to start. When "We go by RS, so if RS say that we say that.", as PackMecEng says, then we should use RS that get it right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- So as I said in my edit summary, which you seem to be ignoring here. We go by RS not what you think happened or your personal political beliefs. Also your sources are fairly dated, the one used to support it, Reuters, is much more current. We could also go with the considerably more recent CBS report that was the previous source. But if you want even more from the time period that you are quoting we could do that as well. ABA, NPR, Politico, and AP from just a quick top list of strong RS. The version you kept edit warring in is factually incorrect according the majority of RS and comes of as MOS:WEASEL/POV. So I think Yodabyte's edit was correct PackMecEng (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's not what "I think happened" or my "personal political beliefs", which are guided by RS. It's what RS explain happened, and which no later information can change, because the Mueller report has not been revised to accommodate Trump's lies. On this point, RS are divided, and the #Conspiracy vs collusion section parses that problem. That's why the section exists, so don't undermine it with Trump's BS. The Mueller report said what it said, period, end of story. No later RS can change that, unless it points to some later revision or explanation made by Mueller, and such a revision does not exist.
- Mueller also recognized that Mueller's investigation did not focus on "collusion", even though Rosenstein had mentioned it:
- "As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" appears in the Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting;..."[1]
- Mueller later addressed this exact issue and pushed back against Barr's and Trump's falsehoods that there was "no collusion".[9] The people and sources that say or imply that there was "no collusion" are getting it wrong and using Trump's and Barr's deceptive and misleading wording. You know that Trump is a serial liar and bullshitter[10] (worse than an ordinary liar), so why do you believe him? The fact he has a huge COI on this matter should not be ignored.
- The RS policy does not imply that all content from RS is accurate. We know that there are situations where RS make mistakes. In such cases, we are supposed to use our common sense. Occam's razor also applies here. When you have a clear statement from the Mueller report, and contradicting statements from many other RS that make false statements about what the Mueller report says, you take the Mueller report at its word and note that the others are being careless and getting it wrong. See WP:SOURCEWRONG.
- "The majority of RS" cannot change what the Mueller report said it evaluated. Mueller said it made an evaluation of "conspiracy" but deliberately did not evaluate "collusion". Even if you line up a list of 50 of the best RS that say Mueller said there was "no collusion", we should still ignore them on that point. Many RS treated "conspiracy" and "collusion" the same way, but Mueller treated them differently, and so should we.
- So you are the one who is ignoring what I wrote and not reading the sources I provided. That quotebox above is a good place to start! Mueller focused on "conspiracy", not "collusion". There is a huge contrast. He "did not evaluate whether there was collusion, because "collusion" is not a federal crime or a commonly used legal term."[4]
- If you can find a version of the Mueller report that says or implies there was "no collusion", then please provide such a quote from it. If your sources are right, it should be easy for you to find some quote from the Mueller report that backs them and your belief. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)
- I think the resolution for this lies in adding more content to show the contradiction and using the RS that explain it and then make examples of some of the RS that "get it wrong". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well no, that does not make much sense because it is not in line with the majority of coverage of the topic. This is getting into WP:RGW territory if you are insisting content must be added even if RS disagree with you. That kind of editing is not allowed here. PackMecEng (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- OMG! You're doing it again. You need to stop replying before reading the existing discussion. The "majority of coverage" is irrelevant here, as explained above. No amount of RS can overturn what Mueller actually said, unless he made a later revision, and that did not happen. He said what he said, and later pushed back against the false statement that there was "no collusion". The Mueller report did not evaluate "collusion", so it is misleading to say Mueller found "no collusion". He did no such thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding how sourcing and article writing goes. Sources say and agree upon X and we report X. Saying stuff like
The "majority of coverage" is irrelevant here
is damaging to the encyclopedia and outside our PAGs. We go by what RS say here and that's what they say. PackMecEng (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- That's not how NPOV works. It's okay to use RS that explain the contradiction between Mueller and those sources. That's what NPOV tells us to do when there is a significant difference of opinion. In this case, it's a difference between an unchanged factual statement by Mueller (no amount of newer sources can change that) and erroneous descriptions of that statement by many RS. They get it wrong, and we should explain it using the RS that explain it, including Mueller himself when he pushed back against that error. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- That a source is GREL does not imply that it is a reliable source for absolutely everything that might be sourced to it. There are plenty of GREL sources repeating the misleading claim that the investigation found no collusion. We note the prevalence of this claim and that it was misleading. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Bingo! That is the approach we must take. I have begun workshopping it now and will soon have some wording and sources we can discuss. A number of GREL discuss the issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- This is not a situation where developing understanding based on newer findings causes us to change content and use the better sources. This is about how solid and unchanging statements made by Mueller in his report are misleadingly characterized by a number of RS. That they still get it wrong now is egregious.
- This would all be so simple if they were just saying there was "no collusion", period, but they aren't. They are not just disagreeing with Mueller, they are misrepresenting him. They are attributing "no collusion" to Mueller when he never made such a statement or implication, and that's so wrong. The repetition of a lie does not make it true, and no matter how many GREL we can find that do it, that doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
In line with the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#When RS make false claims, we do not treat them as true., where PackMecEngs ideas are shot down by several experienced editors, I have made edits to get the article back to a correct description of the Mueller report's findings (and a "non" finding!).
I have added a hatnote pointing to much broader and deeper coverage of this topic:
I also made this edit that added this wording:
- "The investigation did not establish that members of the 2016 Trump campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia and did not evaluate whether or not "collusion" occurred.[9]
I trust that other editors will defend, and improve if necessary, that edit. Also resist anymore attempts by PackMecEng to insert false content and any RS that make the false claim that Mueller found "no collusion". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
References
Mueller Report Archived April 19, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, vol. I, p. 2: In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
.svg)
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
