This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Donald Trump Start‑class 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States Unassessed 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Usful source http://heatst.com/politics/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/?mod=sm_tw_post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.132.46 (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A link (unsigned) to an article in Heatstreet, a site created by Louise Mensch and a post by the same Louise Mensch cannot be treated as a reliable source. This woman has a history of "shooting from the hip" and missing. Some of her most favourite quotes have been well off target based either on: an inability to grasp the facts; laziness; or bias. Acorn897 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has re-added content to the lead saying that Page was a Trump campaign foreign policy advisor. This isn't properly sourced. In fact, that was based on a statement by Trump that was later debunked (no surprise there). Trump included Page on a list of foreign policy advisors in response to outside pressure to list his advisors, but Trump staffers later said that Page was not in fact an advisor and that neither Trump nor the campaign had had any contact with Page. This is detailed in the cited Politico piece, for instance. Re-wording the lead to say Page was "named" as an advisor instead of actually being an advisor is misleading and non-neutral at best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it wrong to say that Page was named as an advisor? It's after all what Donald Trump himself did in an interview here. Other media sources, such as the Politico piece you mention, simply label him a "Trump adviser". That he may not have done any actual advising is detailed in the article as well. And the Trump connection is probably the only thing making the guy notable, basically, so it's something that should be mentioned in the lead, I think.  Sandstein  17:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems. First, the Politico source only describes Page as a "Trump advisor" in the byline. The article body does not actually call him a Trump advisor. Second, being named an adviser implies that you've either done some advising, or there's some intention that you will do some advising. That appears to be contradicted by the source. Third, being named by Donald Trump, a reliably established serial fabricator, as an advisor is quite different from being named as an advisor by a politician or staffer who generally does not go around making stuff up of this nature. So, if the notability of this naming by Trump is lead-worthy, then it still must be presented in a neutral and non-misleading manner and be supported by reliable sources. Currently it's not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to put content of this nature into the lead section, then we at least need to say something along the lines that Trump himself named Page and that his campaign staffers later backed off that claim. But, honestly, this strikes me as much ado about nothing (i.e. not lead-worthy) unless/until the Page-Trump connection receives substantial further media attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about "named by Donald Trump as an advisor"? This does not imply that it is actually true that Page did any advising, merely that Trump named him, and readers can make up their own minds about the truth of that statement. But, well, the Page-Trump connection is basically all there is to the guy, in terms of media coverage; all the articles etc. about him and his alleged links to Russia are about how this might reflect on the then-candidacy of Trump. We can't omit in the lead the reason why we even have an article about this person.  Sandstein  18:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on notability. But "named by Donald Trump as an advisor" is definitely not enough. If Trump had simply named Page as an advisor, and there had been no rebuttal by his staff, then that would be a different story. But here we have Trump's own staff effectively calling bullshit on their boss, and something to that effect has to be included so as not to mislead readers. I could live with something like "named by Donald Trump as an advisor, though Trump's staffers later denied Page's role." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that it's especially important to get the reliable sources right on this right away, in light of the recent revelation of the Trump-Russia dossier, which suggests that Page was in fact advising Trump, despite the staffers' denials. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at today's edit, and see if it balances the two perspectives that appear from both editors. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Prof, which "today's edit"? Anyway, Dr. Fleischman, the lead should be concise, so maybe, "Donald Trump named him as a foreign policy advisor to his presidential campaign, which campaign staffers later denied". You mention recent revelations; any new reliable sources on Page that could be used here?  Sandstein  20:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I'm ok with your proposal. As for the sources, there are a number of recent news stories, such as these from CNN and NY Daily News, but I doubt this content, which effectively amounts to unsubstantiated allegations of treason, would satisfy BLP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I wasn't aware that he appeared in this weird new report as well. I agree that something based only on that is not BLP-compatible.  Sandstein  20:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I started reading about Page after skimming through the dossier and noticing that his name was all over it. The Politico story is a fascinating read, even more so now that the dossier has been published. (It obliquely alludes to the dossier.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit is coming now, please hold. Note, I am also adding Council on Foreign Relations sources, first as URLs, then filling by reFill. Please hold on. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the added volume of the lede is adding detail summarising the article that was originally ignored (Merrill Lynch and CFR affiliations), and not regarding the closing controversial sentence. Also, I took very great care to make the text follow closely to whatever source appeared attached to the statement made, adding nothing editorial at all. So, rather than revert, edit selectively in response please; I have also spent a great deal of time starting to get the citations to a common format. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although I say this in an in-text note: The long included quote in the citation is so all interested editors, today, can see what the Politico article actually says—e.g., it quotes only one journalistic source, an anonymous source regarding Page's lack of content with Trump. The quoted material is asked to remain, until there is agreement how this one Politico article should be represented and summarised (and further quoted material can be temporarily added, in counterpoint to what I found in the article relevant to the 2-3 edited sentences. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil here. When one spends an hour on citations, and various edits, it is not cordial and AGF editing to throw the baby out with the bath, and revert the whole thing. (Especially when it was clear I was still working to clean up the bare URL citations. Did you not look at the edit histories, and in-text notes?) Look at the diff, and change what is necessary, and not more, please. Issues, discuss here. (You will find that the longer lead actually summarises the article—CFR and Merrill Lynch, being omitted earlier, and being crucial to understanding the individual.) If the sentences need fixing, by all means, make the prose tighter. Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. [Pascal, Lettres, XVI]. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues you are corrupting, if you again do a mass revert, Sandstein:

• The citations that were completed and checked.
• The DOB issue was identified and tagged.
• The fact that the new lede summarises the article, as demanded by WP polity and guidelines;
• The fact that quotes are generally considered better in the main body, with the point being summarised in the lede;
• The actual content issues (earlier references to plural sources, when one article, citing one journalistic source was the actual case, etc.)

There are more, and I will ad them if I have to take this to an Admin. In short, I will argue your reversion defies AGF and policy, because (i) the article is not yours, (ii) the article is now better summarised by the lede, (iii) the citations are now in better shape, (iv) the article is now updated to sources within a day of the edit, (v) the prose selected better represents the source (Politico) from which it was drawn, and (vi) this editor has been responsive to your concerns (sentence length), and otherwise made a detailed case, in Talk, in edit summaries, and via in-text notes, while the reverting editor has not. Please, edit selectively, AGF, and show respect. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Leprof's changes are largely helpful, with a couple of exceptions. First, I like Sandstein's version of the lead better as it's more concise and avoids the distracting reference to journalistic investigation. Second, I really don't like the quote in the Politico ref, which seems non-neutral, undue, and unnecessary. In my view quotes should only be used in refs in cases where the sourcing has drawn heavy controversy (not the case here). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participating in the discussion. In response to your input, I will revise out the offending language. But, a lede must summarise the article. The title subject was a Fellow of the CFR of two years, and has been affiliate, through far ranging kinds of participation with the CFR, for a period approaching 20 years. Hence, this is an important career component, and deserves summation in the lede. The same goes for an extended period of work with ML, in three international offices, including one related to the current news stories. In short, I agree that it is not perfect, but I disagree on removing the CFR and Merrill Lynch mentions, for the indicated reasons. (The real problem is with the latter, and the fact that there is a single disparaging source on his employment, the Politico article. This will be rectified.)

With regard to the quotation, I will take another look, but it is true to the source, and it reflects that source's perspective. This is all the more an argument for further sourcing, to see if they all have such a low opinion of the title subject, or if there is counterbalancing perspective that needs to be added. So, hold on will try to improve it in the directions you suggest. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the lede was made to conform closely to the one source appearing. The relevant quoted content of that source now appears in the "quote=" field of the citation, so others can see, and revise the text based on what that article says. Please, if other material in that or another source allows for editing of that last sentence into something more accurate to the published record—I invite the addition of other sources we can all read together, to contribute to this last sentence (i.e., add the new source, and edit the sentence). If I have missed something in the Politico article that is cited, please, add the other relevant quote material to the citation, and then again, bring the last sentence closer to pristine accuracy. That is, I am not averse to the sentence appearing being edited. It simply must closely adhere to the sources. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am against both the last sentence of the lead and the quote, see above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are not challenging the rest of the lede, just the last sentence. Please tell me what the specific issue is with the current closing sentence—does it not summarise the article, and is it not true to the source (even qualifying that source, as being too limited)? RSVP here, please. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's too wordy and distracting. In general your edits to the article have focused too much on what reporters have written, which reporters have written what, and how they differ. This article is about Page, not about the reporters who have written about Page. The edit by Sandstein was sufficient. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to go into detail right now, but I agree with DrFleischman that the lead as it is now is too wordy and confusing. Bad prose. Also, the whole "leaked" dossier is a big WP:BLP issue and i seriously doubt that we can cite it here.  Sandstein  09:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to restore the new version of the lead to something resembling legibility and failed. Per agreement with Dr. Fleischman above, I've restored the previous lead. Minutiae belong in the body if at all. This is supposed to be a summary. Le Prof, please understand that you have failed to obtain consensus for your changes so far.  Sandstein  20:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RT isn't a reliable source, since it's part of Rusia's state propaganda engine. This has been going around WP:RSN for some time. We shouldn't be citing it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the RT source, it was there before I arrived—but my perspective aligns with yours. Is it on a "do not use" list at QP? Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's QP? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no policy or guideline against using one source in a section. It's not a justification for adding additional content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One adds additional content when different sources provide different perspectives in the same historical situation—so I agree with your second sentence, that one adds sources, then material as necessary, and not the other way around.

On your first point, I disagree to an extent. The "one source | section" tag exists, because there is indeed, in encyclopedic writing, the demand that writers make clear they are presenting a NPOV in their writing, which is less likely if multiple reliable sources are cited. (Have you read the Politico article? Do you believe it to be an unbiased representation of the subject? If it is, then it will not be difficult to find further substantiating sources.) Just as the article in Politico loses credibility if far-reaching conclusions are drawn from a single journalistic source (confirmation being the bedrock on which good journalism is based), so too encyclopedic writing, which is based on the preponderance of published material, loses credibility when only a single source is used, unquestioning. I put Politico and the writer names into the text, because ar present there is a single, and likely biased. The text can therefore be streamlined, if multiple sources all say the same thing. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have been filed out by CP? If so, a section would be appreciated. Wikipietime (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Page is anxious to conclude investigations. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article133488324.html Wikipietime (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and October 11 2017, takes the 5th.Wikipietime (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page's 2011 PhD thesis http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.701966

Slightly fishy: no listed advisor and no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.209.196 (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know this is the right Carter Page? As far as we know the subject of this article was never in a Ph.D. program. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Carter William, Page" is the name listed on the cited SOAS web page. I interpret that name to be "Page Carter William", not "Carter Page." Further, as the SOAS page states that this advanced degree was awarded in 2011, it implies that he was around 40 years old at that time, which is not inconceivable, of course. A search for "Page Carter William" turns up a reference at SOAS to the same 2011 dissertation, this time written by "Page, Carter William," who is our guy, I think.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: On the website of his own firm, Global Energy Capital, his bio does not mention a doctorate or SOAS, thickening the plot.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, here's reliable confirmation that Carter did indeed receive a Ph.D. from SOAS. I think we can now safely say that his middle name is William as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was quoted as talking about material he prepared for his lectures. If he's a teacher or professor somewhere that should be included here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Billmckern (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He said . . . she said; it is reported that . . . people claim that . . . . Is it my imagination or does this article read like an item in a gossip column? Should negative allegations be included in this article supported only by reference to reports of allegations? Is the question of whether or not someone spoke with Russians notable? (PeacePeace (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Is there specific content you're particularly concerned about? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Carter Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an ongoing discussion at WP:AE#Carter Page regarding whether page restrictions should be lifted on this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR restriction that was applied to this page by User:Coffee in April has been lifted per a request at AE. Though editing here is no longer limited by 1RR, anyone who edits this topic should be aware that discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2 still apply to individuals, in case of trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After leaving Merrill Lynch in New York in 2008, Page founded his own investment fund, Global Energy Capital; his partner in that venture is former mid-level Gazprom executive, Sergei Yatsenko.^[1]

Should be changed to:

After leaving Merrill Lynch in New York in 2008, Page founded his own investment fund, Global Energy Capital.^[1]

Despite the fact the page is referring to the Politico source Sergei Yatsenko is not Carter's Page partner in Global Energy Capital. On official website of Global Energy Capital there is no mentioning of Sergei Yatsenko. Please see http://globalenergycap.com/management/ NewsCheck (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A whole slew of reliable sources (NY Times, CNN, BI, Intercept, ABC, Newseek, etc. etc.) have described Carter and Yatsenko as partners at GEC in 2008, not just Politico. Whether Yatsenko is currently on GEC's website, 9 years later, is irrelevant. Your request is the equivalent of saying that Page's connection with GEC should be removed because he's not on GEC's website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

response to Dr. Fleischman

All of the articles mentioning Yatsenko and Carter together are taken from 2016 or later. Hence all the mentioned sources (NY Times, CNN, BI, Intercept, ABC, Newseek, etc. etc.) could not be informed about status of business relationship of those two people before 2016. There is no any single source proving their business partnership, neither Carter Page nor Sergei Yatsenko mentioned in their interviews. What I'm trying to say is that sources believe rather than know that those two people are business partners in Global Energy Capital. You can even use website like https://archive.org/web/ or any other similar to check http://globalenergycap.com/ historical changes you will never find any mentioning of Yatsenko there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsCheck (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

response to Dr. Fleischman

On top that you can find in Bloomberg sources that second founder and managing partner of Global Energy Capital was Mr. James Richard https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=58104064 data was accurate in 2016. Non of the so called "reliable sources" even mentioned James Richard as founder, which proves that say have not done proper research before publishing non verified information.

The reason why so many US resources made a mistake suggesting that Yatsenko is business partner of Carter Page in Global Energy Capital is incorrectly translated article of Russian business publisher RBK. http://www.rbc.ru/politics/30/03/2016/56fbf3a49a79470f046775a4 . See part:

"В Москве Пейдж проработал до 2007 года, а вернувшись в Нью-Йорк, основал собственную компанию — Global Energy Capital. В том же году он пытался собрать $1 млрд для покупки активов в Туркмении, но эти планы были сорваны разразившимся мировым финансовым кризисом.

В последние годы Пейдж, по его словам, консультировал иностранных инвесторов в российские активы. Его партнером по некоторым сделкам стал бывший первый заместитель начальника финансово-экономического департамента «Газпрома» Сергей Яценко." Which does not say that Carter and Yatsenko were business partners in Global Energy Capital, but says that Carter founded Global Energy Capital in 2007 and Yatsenko was his partner in some of business affairs which in no way implies Yatsenko was a co-founder of Global Energy Capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsCheck (talk • contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no any single source proving their business partnership, neither Carter Page nor Sergei Yatsenko mentioned in their interviews. What I'm trying to say is that sources believe rather than know that those two people are business partners in Global Energy Capital." - I'm afraid your argument here may be somewhat irrelevant. We do not evaluate evidence and/or make judgments (See WP:NOR). Our main purpose here is to use reliable sources to build an encyclopedia. Darknipples (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change  :"and was characterized as "a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did" by a U.S. official.[4]" to "and was characterized as "a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did" by an unnamed U.S. official.[4]".... or "by a U.S. Official [4]" who was unnamed.

 This change inserts the term 'unnamed' to note that the source is not identified.  The use of unidentified sources in significant news articles is resulting in a pyramid of hearsay related articles.  It is important to identify sources that can be checked. CaptBabble (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a ^{[clarification needed]} tag to the "...including a tour as a Marine intelligence officer..." I see that exact text in the WaPo article that's referenced ^[1], but it's very unlikely that someone would be commissioned as a Naval officer to then somehow switch to being a Marine officer, then back to a Naval officer. Maybe after the initial commitment as a Naval officer, but he was out after 5 years, so no time for that. He may have served as a Naval officer with a Marine unit, but he wasn't a Marine officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkonesMickLoud (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Added additional details about peacekeeping mission in Morocco, with a reference.

Billmckern (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billmckern, please don't edit war--please try to respect the BRD process and avoid re-reverting, especially without any edit summaries and marking your edits as minor. Why do you feel your preferred version is superior? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billmckern, you continue to disrespect BRD by re-reverting. I appreciate your edit summary, but I'm not following the logic. You seem to be defending Page's noteworthiness, something that is not in dispute. Nor is the fact that there was a FISA warrant on him in 2014; I didn't remove that. The question is whether the chronology of the media coverage of Page is noteworthy. In my view this is a biography of Page, not a timeline of the media coverage about him, so while the warrants are certainly noteworthy, the sequence in which facts were discovered about them shouldn't be included. If you do not work with me to reach a consensus then I will revert you based on a consensus of one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: I think it's a question of context. The details you remove take away context that helps illuminate the topic. For example, knowing that Page was under FISA surveillance in 2014 in and of itself isn't especially important. Knowing that the initial 2017 news reports said he'd been under FISA scrutiny since 2016, with more recent media accounts indicating that the start date was actually 2014 provides the context necessary for a more complete understanding of the topic.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable to suggest that a couple of facts out of context are better understood by providing context. If you want to raise the issue on the talk page, that's fine with me.

Billmckern (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is this context that you think is important? As I said, this is Page's biography, not a chronology of how and when the media learned some of the details of Page's biography. Also, you haven't responded to my first inquiry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: I wouldn't use the word "superior". I will say I think my edits build on yours by adding context that's necessary for understanding the totality of the circumstances. Without the context of Page's FISA surveillance timeline, all you have is two disjointed facts that don't show a complete picture.

Billmckern (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're on the same wavelength here. I didn't remove anything about Page's FISA surveillance timeline. And you still haven't explained your first set of re-reverts. Unless your vague comment about "adding necessary context" was your explanation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fleischman, at the moment ... I tend to support Billmckern's additions because we don't just document facts, we also document history and developments. You are objecting. What do you suggest instead? Do you have an alternate proposal? If you make a proposal here (so we don't have anymore edit warring), it would help. Please post something here. Then we can seek a consensus version. (BTW, there is no such thing as a "consensus of one", when more than one person is involved, but I suspect you know that.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the basics. Billmckern wants Page's 2014 FISA warrant to be placed in the section about Trump's participation in the Trump campaign. I disagree, as Trump's campaign didn't even exist in 2014. We have no content on any connection between Page and Trump in 2014. Where do other editors stand on this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something? I wasn't aware that that was the issue. I got the impression you would have been happy to totally delete the paragraph mentioning the 2014/2016 issue and just note that he's been the subject of a FISA warrant since 2014. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Billmckern has re-reverted me on several issues, but that is not my position on any of them. This is probably my most relevant edit (reverted by Bill with no meaningful explanation). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

"I disagree, for the reasons stated on the talk page - please participate there in good faith, or I will report you."

@DrFleischman: You'll "report" me? For what? Disagreeing with you? When did you become the sole guardian and editor of this article? By the way, I think the edit note I included with the edit you reverted made clear that I'm willing to discuss this topic.

Report away...

Billmckern (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason you've given here for your constant re-reverting is "it adds context." That's not collaboration--that's stonewalling. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman:. I'm not "stonewalling". I think what I'm trying to explain is clear.

You: Page was subject to FISA surveillance in 2014. Page was subject to FISA surveillance in 2016. The end.

Me: In April 2017, it was revealed that Page was subject to FISA surveillance in 2016 while he was part of the Trump campaign. In August 2017, news stories revealed that Page had actually been subject to FISA monitoring beginning in 2014, which is two years earlier than had been reported in April 2017.

That's what I mean by context. Two facts, independent of each other, don't tell the whole story. You have to know all the details, and in the right order, to see the whole story.

I don't think you're wrong, and I don't think my suggested edits are "superior". I do think that when you combine yours and mine, the reader can get a fuller picture.

Billmckern (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does this benefit Page's biography? In ten years time, will anyone really care whether the media learned about the 2014 warrant before or after it learned about the 2016 warrant? I believe not. Which is why the "context" you are seeking to add does not seem biographically noteworthy to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: And I "believe" the context is noteworthy in terms of understanding the controversy surrounding Page and his role in the Trump campaign. It's noteworthy in terms of understanding not only what happened, but how and why it happened.

Here's another example that may help clarify my point. When Democratic Senator John Walsh of Montana was accused of plagiarism in 2014, the initial stories which began with the New York Times indicated only that Walsh appeared to have plagiarized his senior paper at the Army War College. Later stories indicated that the Times broke the story only because Republican campaign operatives had discovered the plagiarism as part of their opposition research. The Republican campaign staffers then gave their research to the Times, and the Times published it without revealing the source. Months after Walsh left the campaign, the role of the Republican researchers became known.

To me, the role of the Republicans who did the opposition research on Walsh seems very relevant. Other editors disagreed, and wanted to include only the facts about Walsh being accused of plagiarism and leaving the campaign. My argument was that only by including the details about how the plagiarism was discovered could the reader obtain the complete picture - that the New York Times didn't do some kind of superhuman investigative reporting, but merely published without attribution what someone else had discovered and handed to them.

As for whether Page has been under FISA surveillance continuously since 2014, the news sources I've checked seem to indicate that he was first under surveillance in 2014. They don't explicitly states that he has been under surveillance since 2014. I agree that we should see what subsequent stories indicate, and then make edits and updates as needed.

Billmckern (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your story about Walsh bears out my point, in two different ways. First, the reason you wanted that info about Walsh in the article was because of the identity of the source. Here we don't know the identity of the source. Second, I couldn't find the Walsh discussion you're referring to (mind providing a link?), but I don't see the source of the plagiarism scoop in the article so apparently consensus was against you on that one. Of course the consensus here could be different, but perhaps the Walsh decision reflect a general principle, that while we base our articles on reliable sources, we generally don't write about the sources themselves unless/until the sources themselves receive coverage by other sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: I did provide a link to the main article. Here's a link to the relevant section of the article. John Walsh (U.S. politician)#Early life and education. No, it doesn't bear you out. The article clearly states that the Times got its information from Republican campaign operatives. I would have gone further to make clear that the Republican Party's wasn't revealed until well after the event, and then not by the Times. But on the main point -- the relevant details that provide the necessary context to understand how Walsh's plagiarism came to light -- this article illustrates what I'm trying to say.

Honestly, I'm done discussing this. It's very apparent that you've got some kind of a fixation on this point with respect to this particular article. I don't know why, but I don't see it being resolved unless you get what you want, so go to it. I'll steer clear of whatever you're working on so that we don't cross paths again.

Billmckern (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billmckern, sorry for the miscommunication--the link I was hoping for was for whatever discussion you were referring to in which you disagreed with other editors over the Walsh content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went back through the edit history of John Walsh and there is no sign there was ever any disagreement over whether to include the content you're referring to; in fact, it was added by a different editor and while it was moved around a bit, it was never removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: Now you're just pissing me off. Here's a link to one of my suggested edits on the John Walsh page. You can follow it to see how it emerged into the version that now appears on the page - and it emerged exactly as I said. Don't call me a liar again.John Walsh (U.S. politician) edits.

Now, please KNOCK IT OFF. You WIN! You are the emperor dictator king of the Carter Page article! Go celebrate your victory, and then figure out how to steer clear of me like I intend to steer clear of you.

Billmckern (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

I'm wondering about something, and this is just for increased understanding. It is not for the article, at least not yet. If we can clarify this and add it, without any OR or SYNTH, it would be an improvement. It basically comes down to what the sources can bear, either the ones we already use, or other sources we should also use. Do you know of any other sources which can shed light on this?

My question is:

Does the public revelation in 2017 (that Page had been the subject of a FISA warrant since 2014) mean that the 2016 warrant wasn't really a "new" warrant, but just another extension on the previous one?

I get the feeling that investigators have not always been open with the public (of course), and they wanted to keep hidden from everyone, especially Page and the whole Trump administration, that Page had been under surveillance for so long. The press was just late to discover the 2014 matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and I don't think the public has an answer to that question yet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. We can wait. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/10/carter-page-russia-probe-243648

Time for inclusion in all the glorious details.Wikipietime (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who swore up and down he had "nothing to hide" now pleads the Fifth. How interesting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored factual, accurate, referenced information based on news reports over the last two days. One editor seems to have a particular interest in this article, and reverts anything anyone else contributes - even though it's true and referenced.

I let it go the last time this happened. If these reverts continue, maybe others can review the circumstances and try to resolve the issue without edit warring.

Billmckern (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because information is referenced and you consider it accurate does not mean that the information meets the notability requirements to be included in an encyclopedia, especially a contentious BLP Wikipedia page. You said it yourself... "information based on new reports over the last two days." Given the Wikipedia guidelines WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, WP:NOTADIARY, and WP:TOOMUCH, I support restoring the article back to the reverts made by DrFleischman. Abierma3 (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abierma3: @DrFleischman: Yeah, I'm not letting this go. Respectfully, I think you're deleting important details which are necessary if the reader is to understand the whole story. The opposite of "too much" is "not enough" and what you're doing puts the narrative for this article into the "not enough" category.

If no one else weighs in here in the next day or two, I'll ask for a dispute resolution and see if others want to add their views and help establish a consensus. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it'll take more than just you to convince me. And I don't think I am.

Billmckern (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To claim that this info does not meet notability requirements is absurd. Please stop. Volunteer Marek  04:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't about notability/noteworthiness. It's about whether how the content can be presented to demonstration its biographical relevance. Right now, the paragraph is written as as an impeachment of Trump and Sessions. It is therefore non-neutral coatrack material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billmckern, you got a problem with consensus-building? Please stop edit warring over the tag and respond. No number of sources is going to address the concern I raised. My concern is about neutrality, not verifiability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One contributor, Dr. Fleischman disputes the neutrality of content concerning Page's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, including whether it's accurate to say that Page's testimony contradicts the claims of Trump campaign and administration officials that no one connected to the campaign had any interaction with anyone in the Russian government. The other, Billmckern, has added content stating that Page's testimony does in fact contradict the Trump campaign and administration officials, as well as references to verify the substance of the content. Does anyone else have suggestions or opinions about how Page's testimony should be described and how to provide references for it?

Billmckern (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection to RfC as stated. This RfC is not neutrally stated as required by WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. My position has been misrepresented, and thus I am striking a portion of it. The neutral formulation is as follows. Should the last paragraph of the "Trump 2016 presidential campaign" section, currently tagged with {{pov-inline}} and copied below the fold for reference, be removed and/or rewritten? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One editor is not enough to override consensus and just basic reality. Stop edit-warring regarding the unsupported POV tag. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 23:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]