Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Comey testimony

Previously, in the "Veracity" section, the article said:

"In his June 2017 congressional testimony, former FBI director called the dossier "salacious and unverified", without stating that it was false."

and included the transcript of Comey's prepared testimony as a reference:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/james-comey-memos-testimony/index.html

I edited the entry to clarify that the transcript makes clear:

"In his June 2017 congressional testimony, former FBI director called "some personally sensitive aspects" of the dossier "salacious and unverified," but he did not state that the entire dossier was unverified or that the salacious aspects were false."

Comey was clearly referring specifically to the "peetape" allegation, not the dossier as a whole, as is made clear when the transcript is searched on the word "salacious":

"At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment. The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified.

and later:

"During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen."

The "alleged incident" is the alleged "peetape" episode, not the dossier as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the quotes from Comey's testimony make this pretty clear. I support the proposed edit. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that clarifies the wording. Support it too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The source cited for the change here is part of New York Magazine's "Daily Intelligencer", their blog section. Which would not be a good source for something in Wikipedia's voice. I also don't like speculation on what he did not say. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the NY magazine source, but the edit can be justified by reading the Comey testimony on the CNN source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As a side note, this article is under consensus required and your insertion was challenged by revision. You should not of reinserted it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Soibangla and MelanieN - the article should reflect that Comey was referring only to the salacious bit, not the Dossier as a whole. This is well-documented in mainstream RS, so many others are available in addition to the Daily Intelligencer. I'm not sure that's a "blog" in the ordinary sense, either. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

ec. I have gone ahead and restored the good edit. It harmonizes with the Comey testimony on CNN. Since I don't know which part of the content (word or phrase?) is tied to the NY Magazine ref, I left it in place. There could be some legitimate reason for it being there. The author there is a subject expert. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I was just going by the twitter account of the Daily Intelligencer which describes itself as "New York Magazine's news blog." I do not have an issue with the info and if you have a better source i'm all good for adding it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that what they mean is just that it's updated continuously, similar to some content on e.g. NY Times or WaPo websites. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Are we cherrypicking specific parts of the Comey testimony or are we summarizing it? If a summary, why have we singled out only a few of the unsubstantiated allegations? I oppose the latter because it is noncompliant with NPOV - if we include Comey's testimony, then we summarize it as to what has been vs what has not been substantiated, and we don't cherrypick the allegations because that is POV pushing. I further suggest that we reduce the unsubstantiated claims to either a list or a paragraph - it's gossip at this point - and focus on what has actually been substantiated which includes, what - 3 claims? Also keep in mind that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and is considered opposition research of a political opponent during a presidential campaign, and it involved foreign nationals including a British spy and Russian operatives. I'm growing more confused over who exactly was involved in Russian collusion for the purpose of interfering in a US presidential election. The article should make that information available to our readers and not leave them hanging with nothing but cherrypicked unsubstantiated allegations to read, regardless of how many RS published them. We also need to publish MSM reports about Comey's credibility, including the NYTimes article headlining how Comey shaped an election..." And the list goes on and on....^{Atsme📞📧} 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, your confusion is related to your habit of using unreliable sources in real life. Stick to RS and the narrative is much more clear. There are certain actors in this whole scandal who are unreliable, but if you listen to them and believe them, you'll remain confused. Trump and the GOP leadership are all trying to save their own skins. Don't trust them. Don't believe Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Townhall, Infowars, etc. They are different links in a direct line leading back to Moscow. This BBC article explains how the Trump/Russia election interference worked, and is STILL working:

In the report, Steele spoke of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin… an intelligence exchange had been running between them for at least 8 years."

Members of the Obama administration believe, based on analysis they saw from the intelligence community, that the information exchange claimed by Steele continued into the election.

"This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.

The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of "microtargeting". Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.

"You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic," said the former official, "you know where to target that stuff when you're pushing it back."

This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.

"If you need to ensure that white women in Pennsylvania don't vote or independents get pissed in Michigan so they stay home: that's voter suppression. You can figure what your target demographics and locations are from the voter rolls. Then you can use that to target your bot." [1]

BullRangifer (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bull, in response to your unwarranted allegation about my sourcing habits in real life, I'll share a bit of advice with you that TenOfAllTrades shared with me back in 2015 at WP:RSN, "A second common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) I've read it over and over again over the years, and what constitutes a RS is exceptionally clear in my mind; however, I'm not convinced that it is in yours. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's nothing new to me, and I agree. That's how I think. Since most of my history at Wikipedia has dealt with articles in the medical realm, I'm extremely familiar with MEDRS. After all, I have two health care degrees (PA and PT).

My comments were about sources in real life and how they affect our thinking and beliefs, and especially how that affects our editing and our discussions. Many of your basic POV on these talk pages show you're getting ideas from the kinds of sources which we generally deem unreliable here. That's unfortunate. If they are generally unreliable here, we should not be using them in real life. If you practiced that, you wouldn't experience the "confusion" you talked about above. That was my point. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: What part of this discussion seemed like consensus to reinsert the same material as you did here? PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I did that before seeing your comments. The comments had been in favor, including MelanieN's comments on Soibangla's talk page. I checked the CNN source and the edit was definitely an improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The CNN article includes nothing about "but he did not state that the entire dossier was unverified or that the salacious aspects were false". PackMecEng (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A current, common counter-narrative going around is (paraphrasing) "even Comey admitted in his testimony that the dossier is unverified," which is why I showed from the transcript that he did not and included "but he did not state that the entire dossier was unverified or that the salacious aspects were false" to make that quite clear in case readers choose not to read the transcript. Soibangla (talk 01:41, January 22, 2018‎ (UTC)

Actually, I'm fine with BullRangifer's edit. Let's move on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I am not wedded to those particular words. If you think they do violence to the meaning of the original source, then they could be considered OR and be removed. Do they do violence to the meaning? If someone wants to remove them, I won't object. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. In fact I think when he was asked whether the dossier had been verified, he said he could not discuss that in a public setting (or words to that effect). Give me a minute and I'll try to come up with better wording. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

After looking things over I think we should delete “but he did not state that the entire dossier was unverified or that the salacious aspects were false”. No reliable source seems to point that out. I also think we should drop the NYMagazine source - which is more about whether Trump was personally under investigation - and replace it with this one from the Business Insider. I also reworded his exchange with Burr to be closer to the actual report. That would give us

In his June 2017 congressional testimony, former FBI director James Comey said that "some personally sensitive aspects" of the dossier were "salacious and unverified”. When Senator Richard Burr asked if any of the allegations in the dossier had been confirmed, Comey said he could not answer that question in a public setting.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That works for me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with deleting “but he did not state that the entire dossier was unverified or that the salacious aspects were false” is that the current false narrative goes something like:

"Comey says the whole dossier is fake" (he doesn't)

"The peetape allegation is so outrageously bizarre that it simply cannot be true" or "it's been proven false" (there may not be any public evidence it is true, but that does not mean it has been proven false)

"Therefore, since the peetape allegation has been proven false (it hasn't), that means the whole dossier is false" (it doesn't, even if the peetape has been proven false, which it hasn't been) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla, I understand your reason for wanting to include this. But we can't include it unless we have outside sources explicitly saying it - per our rules at WP:No original research and WP:Synthesis. We can't just say something because it makes sense to us, we have to have sources to quote. Can you maybe find some reliable sources pointing out that Comey did not say the dossier was unverified, or that the "salacious" stuff was not actually proven false (as opposed to unverified)? What do you think of the wording I proposed above, where Comey says he can't comment on verification in a public setting (in effect implying that there are things he could say, but it's classified)? --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Can you maybe find some reliable sources pointing out that Comey did not say the dossier was unverified, or that the "salacious" stuff was not actually proven false (as opposed to unverified)?"

I suggest it would be better if someone can post evidence that Comey made those assertions than to show he didn't (prove a negative). The current false narrative is (paraphrasing) "even Comey admitted it's unverified/fake" but that narrative does not withstand scrutiny of his remarks, it relies on a (willful?) misinterpretation of his remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what "false narrative" you are talking about. Maybe something that is out there in the world, or on the internet, or in partisan sources? But that "current false narrative" is not present in our article and should not be. You are right, we can't prove a negative, and we can't say a negative here unless we have reliable sources to quote. But we are not talking here about "proof", we are talking about what Comey said. I am going to insert my proposed sentence and revised reference into the article, because instead of leaving a possible implication that Comey said nothing has been verified, it says he hinted that some things actually have been. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The false narrative is all over cable news and the web, promulgated by organized disinformation agents. Of course, I am not saying that we should include any of that here without attribution, but the mere fact that my original edit was removed with nothing more than "false" being given as the reason points to this false narrative being prevalent and individuals trying to silence the true narrative. So all we have is the evidence of what Comey actually said, and it is incumbent on others to show that he said something other than what my edit shows (from the transcript) or to show good reason why my edit is false and have it removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, Soibangla - see the Newsweek article titled "EX-TRUMP BODYGUARD: RUSSIAN OFFERED TO HAVE 'FIVE WOMEN' SENT TO BILLIONAIRE'S ROOM, BUT HE SAID NO". The article includes information about Schiller's statement regarding the pee-tape allegations. His response during his Congressional testimony was: “Oh my God, that’s bullshit”. If you need more RS, they're out there for the asking. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

All the more reason why the "pee tape" and prostitutes claims should be left out of this or any other article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole article needs to be updated. Why are we using sources dated last year when there are updated sources that should replace them? The updated sources have identified which allegations are substantiated which means they're no longer allegations, and that's what we should focus on - not rumors. I've provided a number of RS that resolve the WEIGHT & BALANCE issues in this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

All new contents section focused on allegations

Because the current Contents section has been woefully lacking, I have spent some time creating a much better replacement. Since allegations are the main theme, I have worked hard on it and am now prepared to "go live" with the results. Due to its size and growing nature, I have created a separate sub-article:

• Trump–Russia dossier allegations

I have tried to be careful about the following issues: BLP, copyright, OR, primary/secondary/tertiary, fair use, attribution, etc.

I have brought over pretty much everything that's already here, developed much more, and used better sources. I want to be very careful about copyright, and have kept within fair use limits. I also use secondary sources. If a secondary source engages in interpretation, then I have sought to attribute the comment, but if it's straight documentation, attribution is unnecessary.

My aim is to strictly document the main allegations which have been commented on by multiple secondary RS. Some allegations have been completely ignored, so I have also ignored them.

I welcome comments here or there. If you see any problems, let me know and we can work out improvements. Please ping me when you comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Good start, BullRangifer. ^{My comments refer to Trump-Russia dossier and was not aware that a new article had been created.21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)} Of primary concern is NPOV, particularly BALANCE and WEIGHT which effects how the article is presented (encyclopedic, NPOV in a dispassionate tone) beginning with the lede. The first sentence of the lede gives too much credibility and weight to unsubstantiated allegations. Perhaps when it was breaking news back in 2016 it was an easy sell but this is 2018 and the reality is that the "dossier", which was paid for by a political campaign wanting opposition research against an opponent, is now considered to be a highly controversial collection of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories - what the Business Insider refers to, in a sensationalized sense, as "explosive memos", but keep reading.

According to VOX, both sides of the political isle are taking advantage of what I refer to as the "fall-out following the explosion": "Its origins of liberal hopes of exposing a massive conspiracy that would bring Trump down have led to its current status as the center of a conservative conspiracy theory that’s supposed to bring Robert Mueller down." And the drama continues.

There is some important information about the "dossier" that should be included in the lede, specifically that it is not really a dossier according to Simpson, the man who commissioned it: “What people call the dossier is not really a dossier,” Simpson said. “It’s a collection of field memoranda, of field interviews, a collection that accumulates over a period of months". We now have the correct description, and it shines new light on the collection's overall credibility. But wait...there's more.

In The Atlantic article of updated information: "What’s notable about the dossier is that it appears not to have been intended as a statement of ultimate truth for public consumption". The Atlantic article includes other factual statements such as (my bold & underline) "the vast majority remains unverified (though Steele reportedly believes it is largely correct)" VS the WP article's Allegations section which states "some of which are currently unproven". There is a big difference between "vast majority" and "some of which", and therein the problem lies. It is blatant noncompliance with NPOV. Multiple other RS confirm in their updates that the bulk of the dossier remains unverified.

Vox also validated a point I've been arguing regarding the "bait & click" spin: "...it remains hard to argue that publishing unverified information aided the press. The dossier was effectively hearsay, providing useful leads, but not fact." The aforementioned is the kind of factual information that belongs in the article, not the spin that gives weight to unfounded allegations and salacious material that has yet to materialize after nearly 2 years, and that is among the reasons the WP article is noncompliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. More is forthcoming...all we can do is wait for it...but in the interim, we need to get the article right.

CNN published a commentary/opinion piece by reputable author, Paul Callan, titled "Trump is right about the FBI", dated December 30, 2017 which includes the following statement: When news of the text messages between Strzok and Page came to light against the backdrop of claimed McCabe improprieties, it became harder to just dismiss all of Trump's FBI conspiracy claims as delusional -- though many of his critics do. The updated information may not fit the opposition's political propaganda/agenda just prior to the 2018 elections but it is factual, and it is supported by actual documents, including testimony by Simpson of Fusion GPS, and numerous text messages among top level FBI agents. More will be forthcoming this week. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References
References

Wow that is quite the article. The whole thing is stated in Wikipedia's voice and almost every other thing is sourced to an opinion source or non RS. My personal favorite so far is "That Trump "hated"[24] Obama so much that he hired the Presidential suite of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow and had prostitutes perform a "golden showers" show in front of him" all in Wiki's voice stated as fact sourced to the Cosmopolitan's sex & relationships editor and a Newsweek columnist. It is all rather overwhelming. PackMecEng (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

All sourced to RS. When authors have interpreted, they are attributed by name. When they accurately report/quote/paraphrase without interpretation, there is no need for attribution. The source is right there. The allegations are documented as they are. That's what we do. It sounds like you haven't even read it yet. You should. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng what article are you referencing? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump–Russia dossier allegations, the article BullRangifer started this section for. PackMecEng (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. BR, I agree that this article is deficient in having so little about the actual contents. You have done a lot of work on this, and if our intent is to lay out every specific allegation in the dossier, this is the way to do it. And if that is our intent, this is the article to do it in (unless we make a whole separate article). We already provide a link to the dossier, right? So people can go there if they want this level of detail? But your version is much easier than the dossier itself to scan and see exactly what was alleged. So basically we need to have a discussion, is it appropriate to summarize in detail the entire contents of the document at this article? I suppose if we do, we could do it under a "show/hide" button to avoid overwhelming the article.

One specific comment: we have been quite consistent at this article about saying we WILL NOT spell out the prostitute allegations, for BLP reasons. In order to include such negative allegations in a BLP we would need much stronger sourcing that one unverified report. We need to trim that part and/or talk around it. That IMO is policy and not negotiable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I have added some suggestions to the talk page of that article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess I misunderstood your intentions. I thought you were bringing up, for discussion here, whether something like this should be incorporated into this article. That's certainly what your section title here - "all new contents section" - suggested. But now you have linked to your subarticle from here and it looks as if you intended it all along as a standalone article. That seems a little odd to me. This article is about the dossier, but the contents are somewhere else? --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Forgot to ping you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Me, too, MelanieN. I've nominated it as a G10. I also AGF that BullRangifer was actually trying to make this dossier article compliant and didn't realize he had created another article. Wow!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: G10 was denied so I took it to AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think the "list of allegations" is an excellent supplementary page. It could be merged here, but better be kept separately. However, I think that "Allegations" section on this page must be expanded. A short list of specific allegations should also be provided there. For example, I am looking at this source. It tells, among other things, that "Vladimir Putin ‘sought to cultivate’ Trump for five years" and selected him (rather than Clinton) to support because they had kompromat on him. That is something highly relevant for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I have time to respond to questions, objections, and suggestions. I appreciate it all. To adequately do this, I'd like to keep everything in one place, so will encourage everyone to go to Talk:Trump–Russia dossier allegations and we can continue there. Splitting a discussion between two pages is frustrating and wastes a lot of time.

I will answer one concern right here (and copy it there) by explaining why I ultimately chose to make a sub-article, leaving a short summary and "main" link here.

I originally intended to use the content right here, in the "Contents" section. I have written several sizable articles and a number of smaller ones, and am quite familiar with the proper procedure for spinning off content when a section bloats so much it creates an undue weight situation. I have done that many times. The policy is found here: WP:SPINOFF.

Well, my good intentions had not envisioned how much stuff there was. It soon became apparent that using prose format in paragraphs would do the subject injustice, so I followed our guidelines for lists and chose a bullet format. This allows for easy reading, development, and adding two things which are relevant to the subject of these allegations: (1) Commentary, which of course must be attributed, and (2) Confirmation status, since each allegation has its own status. Some allegations have already been proven to be true, and others are still in limbo. The FBI knows more than we do, and I suspect, from what some RS state, that the FBI could, if it were wise to do so before the investigation is done, already confirm the veracity of a number of other allegations, but we are left waiting. They remain "unconfirmed", which does not equal false. C'est la vie.

What I have done is a reverse spinoff, which is not uncommon. I ended up deciding to go straight to a sub-article because there was so much content, and the potential growth would demand a spinoff anyway. NOW, if it is the community's desire that the sub-article be merged into this, the main article, without losing ANY content, that's fine. I personally think the size limits here would still allow it, but everyone should go into this with their eyes open: We will soon need to spin it off anyway. Is it worth moving it back and forth?

For those who mistakenly consider the sub-article a forbidden WP:POVFORK, read this: Articles whose subject is a POV. There is nothing about any particular "POV" as a reason for the sub-article. There is no POV to allegations. They are just allegations we're documenting, regardless of their POV. We document POV here. We don't espouse them. There is a difference.

This is a strictly limited job, without much wiggle room. We do not choose the allegations. They exist, and we must document them.

Now, to reply to the above and make other comments, please bring your concerns to Talk:Trump–Russia dossier allegations and ping me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

One matter does deserve to be discussed here, and that is the current "Allegations" section. It is basically the lead from the sub-article, which is the easiest and best way to do it. That way you don't end up with content and refs here which is not there, and tell a different story here which is not told there. The section here must be a summary of the sub-article, and that's what the lead there already does. If there is any inadequacy, the place to start is to improve the lead there (and that could be done) and then copy that improved lead to the section here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: "We already provide a link to the dossier, right?
→ No, we don't and we should not. If someone adds an external link pointing directly to the dossier (linking to DocumentCloud etc.), the edit should be reverted on sight, per WP:COPYVIOEL. In fact, these edits should be revdel'd immediately. If you don't believe me (and why would you), please check the deletion log of the article. Politrukki (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Politrukki! To answer your question at Diannaa's talk page about why I was "ignoring" this ping: I've been away from the computer for several days. By the time I am seeing this, the debate at Diannaa's page makes it clear that this is not a settled question, and I will leave it to those who are more familiar with copyright issues to decide what we should do. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. Just to be clear, that "ignoring" part was a jest. If someone took it seriously, the fault is solely mine. Politrukki (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, what is there about that edit which "should be revdel'd immediately"? Revdel is not for such content. It's okay if the forbidden URL is in the history. We are only forbidden to actually keep it in the article.

The existence of the dossier and its location on the internet (actually many places) is well-known and linked to all the time by very notable RS. They are not afraid of being sued.

We are allowed to quote from the dossier within "fair use" limits when citing a secondary RS which is quoting it, but not link directly to the specific URL of the Documentcloud website with the large amount of copyright-violating content. Don't try to stretch our guidelines more than necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous discussions were not to quote the dossier or give external links to it. Link 1, Link 2, and Link 3 PackMecEng (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, thanks for providing those diffs. I notice they are all from the "shock and awe" period immediately after the release of the dossier. We're now a year further along. Just sayin'. Regardless, what does policy say? It says that we must not link to the Documentcloud URL where the entire copyrighted dossier is found, apparently without permission or fear.

There is a difference between providing the URL to a forbidden hosting site, and quoting the content. It is the site, not the content, which is forbidden. I know of no policy which forbids us from quoting what RS say about it, including when they quote it, neither do our policies forbid quoting from any copyrighted works, as long as we stay within "fair use" limits.

In fact, even unreliable sources can be used to document their own POV on articles about themselves. We are of course relying exclusively on those RS which mention it, and not going to the dossier and ourselves cherry picking what we wish to include. That would be OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe you are disputing this. Revdel'ing a COPYVIOEL wasn't my idea, at least originally. I have consulted Diannaa, who is very experienced in solving copyright problems. I suggest we move the party here, unless Diannaa asks us to leave: User talk:Diannaa#Revision deletion of COPYVIOEL link at Trump–Russia dossier Politrukki (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems that WP:RD1 might not be so clear on this and we need to seek clarification from other venues. I'm thinking about going to WP:VPP. Politrukki (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have commented on her page. I too want to get this right. Keep me oriented. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: "This article is about the dossier, but the contents are somewhere else?"(21:29 22 Jan -- The content or talk about the content of it really isn't much anywhere -- coverage here seems to follow the WP:WEIGHT nature of what the coverage is, a chase of many individual bits of sensation over who says what about it or about participants and individual points or process or events stemming from it, not on the text itself. The articles actually presenting the whole text or describing the whole or giving some analysis of it overall is fairly tiny. A couple that might link to seem the Washington Post fact-checker opinion article, or the Bump article walk thru of each section of the document. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

2016 RNC Ukraine plank

In the section entitled "Veracity" some editing changes have been made regarding the the RNC's 2016 Ukraine policy shift announcement (diff 1, diff 2). I checked both references (NPR, CNN) and neither say anything about "lethal weapons" or "appropriate assistance". Both are quoted in the Wikipedia article as if quoting one of the sources in the current version ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This source does mention "lethal weapons". BTW, several other RS deal with a connection between the kickbacks Manafort was receiving from the pro-Russian ex-president of Ukraine (see here) and the Trump administration's changes to their Ukraine policy. There were many players pushing for this, and Trump may have played along: Putin, Yanukovych, Manafort, and Gordon, to name a few. That makes sense. Ping Steve Quinn. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This article needs trimming

There is far too much detailed information and cruft in this article (now at 81,163 bytes, 5619 views total since inception, probably because of all the editors watching it). We need to trim the fat, and focus on the dossier and the allegations. A second article was neither warranted nor needed.

The sub-section titled, "Hints of existence", is TMI - fact: the Steele dossier did not exist before the DNC & Clinton Campaign commissioned GPS to conduct opposition research, and the research ended when they stopped funding it. The focus from that point forward should be only on the dossier itself - factual statements, dispassionate tone, compliance with V, NPOV, and NOR. Remove the sections "Authorship", "Veracity", & "Reputation in the U.S. intelligence community" - the article appears more as an attempt to "justify" the dossier's existence which fits the description of SOAPBOX and ADVOCACY. WP should not take a view - so we need to remove those sections and summarize them into a short paragraph of prose if it's determined by consensus to keep it.

See the following WaPo article, scroll down to the section About the dossier. Read the conclusion because it pretty well sums up the WEIGHT & BALANCE this article should reflect without the analysis. Summaries not details. Corroborate the info with other RS, and voilà. Trim down the "Reception" section - we don't need that many views/opinions.

Add a section to accommodate the investigations the dossier has brought onto itself. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two sections, "Veracity" and "Reactions", which are telling about essentially the same. Perhaps some materials from "Veracity" should be moved to "Reactions" or possibly be removed as duplicate or not really significant. So, I cut a couple of obvious things, but would not go further, given contentious nature of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Cohen

The content about Michael Cohen deleted in this edit should be restored to this article. The content includes partial corroboration (and there's more in sources) for the claim that Cohen was not in Prague. If we fail to do that, we should delete allegations against Cohen, which are still included in the history section, from this article. Politrukki (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it sourced to an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

In short, yes. I believe Respekt magazine is the only source that has reported information received from Czech intelligence. Respekt is a reliable source and we cited the primary source through RFE/RL, presumably because the RFE/RL article is in English. Everything else in the paragraph can be cited to multiple reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, I have done my best to improve the denial content. Take a look here. I hope that meets your concerns. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can work with that, but would you mind if "There is no record of him entering Prague by plane" is still attributed to "A Czech intelligence source" or something similar? Politrukki (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. Will do immediately. Thanks for the improvements. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done in BOTH articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we just delete this?

Since the following NBC report was wrong, and it didn't create any lasting effects, can't we just delete it and tweak what's left accordingly?:

NBC reported that a senior U.S. intelligence official said that Trump had not been previously briefed on the contents of the memos, although a CNN report said that a statement released by James Clapper in early January confirmed that the synopsis existed and had been compiled for Trump.

BullRangifer (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We should not delete reports that were wrong unless they are undue as long as we state that they are wrong. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Emir of Wikipedia - agreed -- if it was WP:DUE before, then later information is part of the same thread andmaking it more DUE. Though it would have to be careful to have solid sources (not just some third party saying something was wrong) and be clear on if the next step is a claim that it is wrong or is them retracting the story. Markbassett (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Has NBC withdrawn the report or said that it was wrong? --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but here is where editorial discretion comes in. The CNN source makes plain that NBC was in error, and we know that can happen with developing stories because of ignorance of certain facts. Later reports often correct errors in earlier ones. In this case, NBC was getting their information from a "senior U.S. intelligence official" who was ignorant, misinformed, or.....

If we find a source we're using is in error, we usually stop using it (removal) if it hasn't made significant ripples that themselves are notable or scandalous, but if that were the case, we'd document the disagreement and ensure that the reader understood who was right, if that is clearly possible. Otherwise we'd document the discrepancy and leave it at that. Later we should correct that content when all the facts are available. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I deleted this segment, but do not mind if anyone would restore it after some rewriting. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What respectable editor, whom has by their participation implicitly signed a dedication to Wikipedia's purpose of "giving [everybody] free access to the sum of all human knowledge," would suggest that "we just delete this?" -Inowen (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Because we only document notable information, and in this context, since the error hasn't made any significant problem, scandal, or ripples in society, it's better that we not just repeat what was essentially a typo, a one-off occurrence.

This is what we have always done at Wikipedia in this type of situation, and I've been here since about 2003. My fingerprints are in some of our most important policies. Been there, done that. We simply don't repeat erroneous information just because it once existed as a remote and isolated blip. It's worse than WP:NOTNEWS, and less significant, and we certainly don't include such things.

It would be an entirely different matter if it had become part of a controversy. Then we'd document both sides of the controversy, including the erroneous information.

When we have a choice between accurate and inaccurate sources, we choose the accurate ones. We don't quote the inaccurate ones just because they exist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

In politics media, "Russia" is also a codename

..for 'some nameless nefarious European state that's not actually Russia.' The usage of "Russia" as a codeword for "Britain" and other political entities too threatening to name gets into the problem that these memos just won't make sense without decoding them, and that while the US political leadership has one reason to use code, and the US media have similar reasons to follow suit and use code, the resulting news reports resonate little without a codebook on hand to get through it all. -Inowen (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for your theory? Otherwise, it is just venting hot air, which is not allowed here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The lede is very misleading

The lede says, in part:

"The dossier was produced as part of opposition research during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. After Trump emerged as the probable Republican nominee, attorney Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm retained American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research about Trump on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton presidential campaign."

Except this is only partially true. Elias took over the opposition research initially funded by the news-site The Washington Free Beacon which is financed by conservative billionaire Paul Singer. The way the lede is written, it suggest that Elias on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC - and no one else - was involved in the financing the dossier. By leaving the lede this way, Wikipedia is deliberately lying by omission. I write "deliberately" because it has been reported over, over, and over, over, and over again that the Clinton campaign nor the DNC initially funded the Steele dossier; yet lede implies that Clinton and DNC were the sole financiers of the Steele dossier. This is false: you know it's false, I know it's false, and the verifiable facts prove it's false yet this critical nugget of information (i.e. that The Washington Free Beacon initially funded the dossier) is buried deep within the article itself. Usually when I see bias on Wikipedia, I just look the other way, but this one is so egregious and shameful that I just had to write something. What bothers me is that by omitting this critical piece information from the lede, Wikipedia is willingly (or unwillingly) perpetuating ignorance and obfuscation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.22.85 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Two issues to discuss:

1. You have violated a very important policy here. You have accused editors of "deliberately lying". No, you MUST assume good faith. Instead of accusing, ASK why this situation exists. There is a very good answer. It's because YOU have misunderstood the following:
2. There are two phases to the history of this article due to two phases of opposition research, the latter of which led to the development of the dossier:

A. The prehistory of the dossier was the opposition research funded by Singer and The Washington Free Beacon. It did not produce any part of the dossier. It came later.

B. When they stopped their support for opposition research, the DNC and Clinton campaign took over the funding and Fusion GPS also sought the help of Steele, the top professional on the subject. He is the one who created the dossier, which is the main subject of this article.

I hope that clears things up for you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• More lede problems:
  • "Following Trump's election as president, Steele continued working on the report, with funding from Democrats ceasing and financing finally coming directly from Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS.[15]" The statement that the Steele report was funded by Simpson is not supported by the reference. The reference only says that the work to investigate Trump's connection to Russia was continued. The Steele memo is only part of that investigation.
  • "Fusion GPS later contracted Steele to compile the dossier.[14]" As Simpson has testified both before Senate and House committees, he contracted Steele to do research into Trump's association with Russians, with no further instructions on its content. "... compile the dossier" sounds like Fusion GPS determined the content to be provided, which is not the case. 142.254.1.3 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

i agree the lede should be clearer on where initial and continued funding came from, especially as the info is already on other parts of the page, i will see if i can't copyedit some words 184.100.241.131 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This section, and the body of the article, explains the history of the opposition research. The "initial" funding was for general opposition research on Trump, and never for the dossier. They were essentially two different projects, but with the same target, Trump. During the process of doing general opposition research for Republicans, Simpson discovered some Trump-Russia connections that interested him. Then the Republicans stopped their funding.

When the Dems and Clinton hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump, Simpson saw the opportunity to continue the previous research, but in a new, very specific, direction...Russia. He contacted Steele, the top expert on Russian intelligence affairs, who had a proven track record for good research. Then he hired Steele's company, Orbis, and they started their specific research, without knowing they were working, indirectly, for the Dems or Clinton.

After reading that, is there still any such need to improve the lead? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• No - the Steele dossier did not begin until it was funded by the DNC & Hillary Clinton campaign. Anything prior to that was not the Steele dossier - it was simply opposition research conducted by other entities prior to the contracting of Steele, so it actually has no relevance to what Steele compiled in his dossier. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

hmmmm looks like we definitely do need to improve the lede if there is a serious attempt to separate the research from its reporting- we only need to change two or three words to make the lede much more accurate and indisputable... but instead even against consensus we keep a disputable and more partisan version of the dossiers history. i understand blaming only democrats for the dossier, is in vogue at the moment, but that simply doesn't add up and is not what the page says farther down- so we're also contradicting ourselves? Just to pretend that no Rubio campaign oppo ended up in the final dossier?

honestly its just weird to see folks fighting to have the lede and the body contradict each other, its sad and wrong, but not the first time bad editing has been involved on the political pages 184.100.241.131 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

184.100.241.131, read what Atsme wrote very carefully. She's right. Frankly, I don't see the problem, but if you will provide some suggested wording that will improve the lead, we'll certainly consider it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I don't think the Washington Free Beacon project is really relevant at all, except in talking about news coverage and some politicians making the claim of a connection. It's kind of a fun fact/trivia thing that WFB happened to have also hired Fusion GPS to research Trump. Wasn't trivia banned on WP at some point? The body sections talking about it will also have to be revised. Glenn Simpson testified that they were separate projects that only happened to have the same target, which in turn meant some information compiled during the former was reused in the latter. "But, you know, it wasn't like a direct line continuum." was Simpson's phrasing when asked if FGPS had been hired "to pick up on the work that you had begun" in the HSPCI interview that's in the external links. Doesn't look that's been used as a source, so there's an opportunity. 209.180.174.141 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

209.180.174.141, I'm not sure you understand this discussion (or other discussions we've had about this), in other words the very reason this thread was started.

We are constantly having to deal with readers who come here and are confused. That's because the news reporting about all of this went through a long evolution, where facts not known at first gradually came to light. In the beginning, we did not know from any RS that there was any difference in who funded the dossier. RS created the impression that the dossier started as opposition research funded by Republicans. Only later did RS finally bring clarity to the situation and separate the two phases of opposition research:

1. A "general" type by a journalist (Simpson, at Fusion GPS), where the researcher(s) knew the client (Washington Free Beacon).
2. A very "focused" type by a former spy (Steele, at Orbis), where the researcher (Steele) did not know the ultimate client (the DNC and Clinton campaign). He thought his client was Fusion GPS.

That's why we must keep an explanation in this article. It is here people will always seek that information, and we can provide it. Mention of the Washington Free Beacon's role is a pre-history to the dossier, and it is completely justifiable for us to include that type of information here.

If we word it right in the lead and the body, we can stop these constant accusations that our lead and the body are confusing, misleading, or missing information. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read through the archives of the talk page, if that's what you're getting at. I said that the claim of connection by media and politicians makes it relevant to the article. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated as non-trivia in the rest of the article. It's unclear to me why the WFB project is even alluded to in the lede. As I said, I think the body also needs revised. Maybe the best thing here would be to expand the "Reaction" to something like "History of Coverage," where discussion of debunked claims like this could go. The third paragraph of the lede is clearly problematic to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. As written, I see two possible very misleading readings that either the references to "investigations" refers to the unrelated WFP project by FGPS or there was some kind of criminal investigation that led to the dossier, depending on the level of context readers are coming here with. WP should read clearly and reliably regardless of how much information you have when you load the page. Just my 2 cents. 209.180.174.141 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have seriously reworked that part of the lead to include a clearer history of BOTH investigations. The paragraph split also makes the separation clearer. Hopefully this will stop the confusion among so many readers. Take a look. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Rename this page to Steele Dossier ?

Resolved

 – Identified as similar to a recently closed issue. May re-open later if the "Steele dossier" moniker persists in sources. K zorn (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi (new to wiki editing here, please be nice!),

Can we rename this pair of pages to "Steele dossier" / "List of Steele dossier allegations"? I don't even know how you would do that -- I assume it requires some kind of consensus, right?

Reasons:

1. "Steele dossier" is about equally recognized

- On Google, I see "Trump–Russia dossier" with 462,000 results, and "Steele dossier" with 408,000 or 786,000 results, depending on punctuation

2. "Steele dossier" is more specific -- see news articles discussing a possible "second Trump-Russia dossier"

- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/trump-russia-collusion-fbi-cody-shearer-memo

- https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16951490/trump-russia-dossier-cody-shearer-memo-nunes

3. Mr Steele's identity as its author has been officially acknowledged and declassified

4. This more specific title helps disambiguate this particular source from all the other sources about Trump-Russia connections

K zorn (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• While I personally agree, this was discussed in in November and again in January and the consensus was for this page name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, K zorn!! Welcome to Wikipedia!! For more info, see the following discussion: Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_6#Requested_move_15_January_2018 Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry didn't see that. I've read the arguments there, but still think that "Steele dossier" is a better title. In particular, the "author / subject" distinction seems to be somewhat arbitrary -- e.g., should when should we also rename http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram to "Germany-Mexico Telegram"? The topic of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections is Trump & Russia, whereas the topic of this page is a particular set of documents.

Given the number of "Trump-Russia" stories and topics, as well as the issues raised above concerning bloat ("This article needs trimming"), it seems to that the title "Steele dossier" helps tighten up the scope & focus, discouraging non-dossier-related tangents.

Moreover, two recently developing points in this investigation merit reopening the issue. First, Steele's identity as author has been declassified and has become part of the focus of this story. Second, the GOP FISA Memo creates pressure on the investigation to distinguish the Steele dossier from the corroborating sources -- thus underscoring the need for an encyclopedia to make a clear distinction.

In the end, it comes down to being clear about sources.

K zorn (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@K zorn: Your analogy with the Zimmermann telegram is interesting; I am also reminded of the Ems Dispatch, which is neither called the "Franco-Prussian war telegram" nor the "Wilhelm I–Bismarck telegram". Perhaps a new move request may be in order with this argument in focus. However, barring extraordinary circumstances, it is customary not to try a new move so soon after the exact same title change was rejected in a well-attended discussion. I would suggest tabling your suggestion until springtime. Then, you can find instructions at WP:RM to actually start the process again. — JFG ^talk 23:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sounds acceptable.

The GOP memo did refer to it as the "Steele dossier"...it will be interesting to see how the Dem memo refers to it, if/when that is released.

K zorn (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Misleading timeline

I feel the third paragraph is misleading. The oppo research didn't start when Trump won the primary, or even in 2016, as the paragraph implies. When Fusion GPS was hired by Elias, Fusion GPS had already been doing Trump oppo research for seven months, and Steele was hired one to two months later to investigate the numerous links to Russia which had already been uncovered. I haven't edited the article. 37.46.163.131 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope this edit clears up any misunderstanding. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

See also discussion in "The lede is very misleading." It's not clear that the FGPS for WFB is relevant tot he article. Maybe trimming references to it needs its own discussion. 209.180.174.141 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added an explanation there for why we must include such content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Or simply the dossier"

In no context other than a very specific one in which the context and the parties have been named is this document called simply "the dossier." And in cases where simply "the dossier" is used, the event of its release and the fact that its a document have already been declared. Basic language science. Good example where a clearly inacurrate edit has been given a source reference. -Inowen (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree. It was clearly called the "Steele dossier" right before in that source, and thereafter just "dossier". I'll remove it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Right. Its a common word, like "document." There is no just one dossier or document. -Inowen (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Is MI6 British, so British one should already know and therefore not mention that its British?

This is an article about an American political leader and the environment around them. Mentioning that an agency of some form belongs to some separate and even different in other ways foreign nation is not improper and not overstated. For new readers coming to the article, whom may have never read about MI6 before, mentioning that its British would be a help to them and would make it so they didnt have to click on the MI6 link to investigate further and eliminate guesswork: 'The article mentions Russia - is MI6 Russian?' In articles about British politics, we don't mention Donald Trump for example without identifying him as the president of a different nation. -Inowen (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand the problem. We can't take it for granted that everyone knows that MI6 is British.

MelanieN made this edit: "he's a former intelligence officer; he's not formerly British"

I later made this edit: "We've dealt with this several times. He's not "former British". He's still British. It's also unnecessary and awkward. MI6 is British."

Here are the versions we've tried:

• 1. Wrong: "by former British MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele."
• 2. Awkward: "by former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele."
• 3. Smooth, but imprecise: "by former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele."

Here's a new attempt, but I'm not sure it's much better:

• 4. "by Briton Christopher Steele, a former MI6 intelligence officer."

How about this:

• 5. "by Christopher Steele, a former MI6 (British Secret Intelligence Service) officer."

Does anyone have a solution to this conundrum? -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I dont see a conundrum. He is actually a former British MI6 officer, though not a former British. British MI6 works linguistically as a single unit, and the proper global name for a specific nations intelligence agency. The important fact is that hes an agent of a nations intelligence agency. This is global politics - what nation does this person and that agency belong to? It would be more proper to just say British intellgence than to say MI6 - the latter is improperly familiar, in the same way that the name CIA would be less preferable than American intelligence. Once the agency home nation is identified however, with the agency name, then using the name alone seems preferable. -Inowen (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I added more above, and numbered them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Note also the conundrums in the other choices. Briton Christopher Steele reads like a persons actual name with Briton as first name. And what is the proper demonym for someone from the UK? Seems to be the actual nation and not the empire is referenced. -Inowen (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Briton is the proper demonym, but I see your point. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The last choice seems formal. But don't we have in the English language the ability to express ourselves in an informal mode that is not an improper form? Former British MI6 would be that. -Inowen (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's wait for others' input. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

How's this?

• 6. "by Englishman Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer."

BullRangifer (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep it simple: "by Christopher Steele, a former MI6 intelligence officer." I don't see why specifying Steele's nationality is important here; link to his bio is enough. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

ec.. That's my favorite solution, but I was trying to see if we had an option which would satisfy Inowen's concerns. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• 7 by Former M16 (British Secret Intelligence Service) officer. SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a blend of numbers 5 and 6 above, unless you add Steele's name at the end. That would work.

• 7a. "by former M16 (British Secret Intelligence Service) officer, Christopher Steele."

BullRangifer (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see what you are trying to do now... then perhaps we could use "by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer." Solves the objection that "people don't know what MI6 is" without conflating Steele's nationality with the nation of the intelligence service he used to work for. — JFG ^talk 01:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think thats simple and rational. Adding MI6 in parentheses too might work, like "by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence (MI6) officer," but its not important to use the specific term-name, in the intro, just the general one. -Inowen (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, great suggestions! Is this satisfactory to everyone?

• "by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence (MI6) officer."

BullRangifer (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

good. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done[2] — JFG ^talk 03:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If our readers need more information about Steele, they can find it via the Steele BLP. This article is not "about" Christopher Steele, it's about the dossier and what we know about the Trump-Russia collusion. What matters most is the Trump-Russia dossier and who Steele is now - a co-founder of Orbis Business Intelligence, a London-based corporate intelligence consultancy that was contracted by Fusion GPS to dig-up dirt on Trump - not what Steele was 10 years ago; i.e., a former British spy and we summarize it by saying he has a background in British intelligence. As far as the dossier is concerned, he compiled unverified memos submitted by unidentified Russian contacts, which is a far cry from substantiated "intelligence". He allied with some journalists and convinced them to publish his unverified salacious claims and rumors about Trump. That's what we know about the Steele dossier at this point in time. The vast majority of the memos he compiled remain unverified, regardless of all the NEWSORG spin. Our article should include factual, verifiable statements, and the few verified findings in the dossier (such as Carter Page went to Russia) and that the dossier itself is opposition research bought and paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign. Also that Steele was working with the FBI, but an article in The Guardian said: According to Simpson, Steele “severed his relationship with the FBI” after the New York Times published a story in late October 2016 that said agents had not found “any conclusive or direct link between Mr Trump and the Russian government”. Another fact that should be included (and worded correctly according to what the sources say) is that the Memo that was released by the House Intelligence Committee said that the dossier was used illegally to obtain 4 FISA warrants. The Democrats on the Intelligence Committee claim the dossier is not what made the FISC issue the warrants, and so forth. There isn't a whole lot more beyond that, period the end. There is plenty of cruft, "conspiracy theories" and salacious rumors, but WP does not spread rumors and our encyclopedia is not a publisher of conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter how many RS published those rumors - editorial judgment, NPOV, WEIGHT, BALANCE are what counts. Any rumors we do include require in-text attribution cited to RS. See NEWSORG, NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, NPOV and PUBLICFIGURE. I've already elaborated on the relevant policies throughout this TP. Happy editing!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

^{Looks like the Steele info was already taken care of - sorry about the edit conflict. Atsme📞📧 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)}

@Atsme: Kindly be mindful of WP:NOT#FORUM. — JFG ^talk 03:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• sigh* Kindly read what I posted. It has nothing to do with Forum and everything to do with proposed CONTENT. Surely you know the difference. I even included the sources. I can't help it if you don't like the way I framed my suggestion but the fact that you considered it "forum" is one of the reasons I'm hesitant to even edit this article. I'll just wait until the time is right and won't have to be intimidated and reprimanded every time I suggest edits. Jiminy Cricket. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way, Atsme, that wasn't my intent, just a friendly reminder. Sure, you do suggest article improvements, but they are voiced in a forum-y style, so it deters from effective discussion. Besides, the changes you suggest here are unrelated to the discussion of Steele's nationality and how to link to MI6; they would deserve a new thread. — JFG ^talk 04:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

JFG, I certainly hope my style of writing doesn't cause you or anyone else to lose sleep at night. I briefly explained the reasons for my proposed suggestions because the NPOV issues have not been resolved. I'm now wondering if the article should be tagged until the issues have been resolved? I'm also of the mind that it would serve the project well if we could please focus more on the content issues and less on my style of writing when presenting them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme. JFG has a point here. The above block of text meandered off topic quite a bit. This is not about a style of writing. Perhaps, it is more about focusing on the issue under discussion. It did comes across as pontificating or WP:FORUMy, and this is not personal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I prefer MelanieN's initial edit [3]. I think this solved the problem. It seems to succinctly cover all the bases. And I don't agree that it comes across as awkward [4]. imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Consistency in noting who paid for the work

In the opening two sections, it is noted that a "conservative political website" paid for the initial funding of the dossier. But there is no reference to who it is. However, it is noted that later funding was by the Democrats. To be balanced the website, The Washington Free Beacon, should be named. It is not named until the second paragraph of the History section.

Current: Intro section, third paragraph : The investigation into Trump was initially funded by a conservative political website before Steele was involved, and was later funded by Democrats.

History section first paragraph (should be deleted as it a repeat of the third paragraph of the intro section and is a single sentence): The dossier and the investigations preceding it were part of opposition research on Trump. The investigation into Trump was initially funded by a conservative political website before Steele was involved, and was later funded by Democrats[19][20][2][21].

Proposed (additions in bold which would be hype linked):

Intro section, third paragraph : The dossier and the investigations preceding it were part of opposition research on Trump during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. The investigation into Trump was initially funded by a conservative political website, The Washington Free Beacon before Steele was involved, and was later funded by Democrats [19][20][2][21].

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARSanderson (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC) 

See also discussion in "The lede is very misleading." It's not clear that the FGPS project for WFB is relevant to the article. Maybe trimming references to it needs its own discussion. Also, it wasn't "the Democrats" it was Perkins-Coie on behalf of the Clinton campaign or whatever the formal title of the entity was. 209.180.174.141 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added an explanation there for why we must include such content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Discussion closed - proposal withdrawn

The lede The Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is opposition research comprising a collection of 17 salacious and unverified memos, or raw humint compiled by Christopher Steele. The memos were provided to Steele by unknown Russian sources. Steele is a co-founder of London-based Orbis Business Intelligence and a former MI6 officer with experience in Russian matters. Orbis was subcontracted by Glenn R. Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS who is a former Wall Street Journal investigative reporter. Fusion GPS was contracted by the Democratic National Committee together with the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 to research the possible existence of a conspiracy between then presidential candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government. Chairman of the Sentate Judiciary Committee Charles E. Grassley (Iowa-R) and senior committee member Lindsey Graham (SC-R) submitted a referral of Christopher Steele dated January 4, 2018 to Deputy Attorney General Rosentein and FBI Director Wray requesting an investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §101 because the committee has reason to believe he "lied to federal authorities about his contacts with reporters regarding information in a dossier." The New York Times referred to the request as, "the first known congressional criminal referral in connection with the meddling — against one of the people who sought to expose it." Oppose - Sorry, but this improperly emphasizes the wrong points and some of it is not even verifiable in the cited sources. It certainly is not an improvement over the current version.- MrX 🖋 02:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Nix Salacious? C'mon. SPECIFICO talk Oppose. This is a ridiculously biased text, and not a proper summary of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Oppose. Factually incorrect and tendentious: Oppose More for what it leaves out.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Part 1: Only one incident in the dossier is "salacious" (yellow journalism has given it undue weight, and we don't support that). The rest of the allegations are quite sober, detailed, and serious, and several have been confirmed. The memos were not "provided to Steele by unknown Russian sources." "Provided? Really? Each memo was created by Steele from info, often from multiple sources. Some have been reasonably well identified, and others are still only known (to the public) by their code names (Source D; "sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively"; "Source C, a senior Russian financial official", etc.) That's how raw humint intelligence documents are written. They aren't fictional persons. Steele knows who they are. The rest of Part 1 seems factual. Part 2: This is related to the Nunes memo, IOW part of the GOP/Trump/Putin distraction/cover-up, which is falling apart because it's not factual and based on cherry-picked info and lots of misinformation. The Nunes memo article covers this type of information, and it's only tangentially related to the subject of this article. The body (below) is more of the same, and even worse. Take it to Nunes memo. BullRangifer (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Oppose per BullRangifer. Very misleading summary. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC) The body Merge and substantially trim the sections Veracity and Reactions - redundant and UNDUE. When combined include a balanced portion of other views of the dossier such as Rep Jim Jordan calling it "garbage", and Paul Roderick Gregory saying he knew it was "fake", and another report referring to it as "demonstrably false", and a WaPo article saying "the information included in the reports is mostly unverified “humint” — intelligence gathered by talking to people." A report in Wired summed up it up with quotes like, "The intelligence report, in other words, shouldn’t be accepted as fact. But neither should it be dismissed as fiction." A former intelligence staffer said, "Bluntly, it looks like an ex-field officer who's got some interesting sources, but who has no idea how to compile raw HUMINT into usable intelligence." Remove Hints of existence - include the actual publication of information by Mother Jones and Buzz Feed, and include the resulting litigation as a result of Buzz Feed publication of the dossier - all of which belongs in the secion History. Remove the irrelevant Fusion GPS research prior to the subcontracting of Steele, and the Papadopoulos meeting. Include information that can be cited to VOX regarding what the memo means to the dossier in that "it is not the case that subsequent investigation has vindicated the dossier’s claims or that the Trump investigation is primarily based on those claims." VOX basically corroborates what Trey Gowdy said about the dossier. Gowdy's quote should be included in the article in quote form: There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier. — Trey Gowdy, February 4, 2018 I think the above is a good start. Atsme📞📧 01:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC) References References I stopped reading when i got to unverified. We have had serveral RFC's on this. At this point, if I read that, I just assume the rest is POV.Casprings (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Every talk and discussion we have had, based on a quick search of the archive, turned up that yup it is unverified and thats how we should describe it. [5], [6], and [7] Where was it you saw otherwise? Also WP:AGF would be helpful, accusing someone of being a POV pusher is not helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC) − "Salacious"? That's the point? Really? Atsme, you get the Trey Gowdy award for good citizenship! I think most of this proposal has been discussed before. Could you identify one or two changes you think are most likely to gain support, and we can take it from there? SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_6#RFC_on_lead and here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_5#RfC_about_use_of_unverified . Clear consensus.Casprings (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC) The first RFC is a bit confusing on close. Reads like a no consensus but not sure if I am just reading wrong. Second favors removing unverified from lead but also against saying it is partially verified kind of a wash there. Guess we will see what people think of this one. PackMecEng (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Support 1 - These sections seem piecemeal and should be reworked into a more cohesive flow. Some of the material, for example the paragraph dedicated to Robert Gillette's column should be eliminated entirely.- MrX 🖋 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Support 2 (remove the heading "Hints of existence") - Keep and improve the content more or less as proposed. The entire history should be chronological in my opinion. Eliminate the Mother Jones quote.- MrX 🖋 02:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) ::Thank you for the response, MrX. I have no problem with copyediting for consistency and blending with other information in the article.This NYTimes article also supports the information I proposed, including the fact that Steele compiled "a salacious and unsubstantiated dossier outlining a Russian effort to aid the Trump campaign." The reason Buzz Feed was the only source that published the dossier was because MSM wouldn't touch it. I'm not aware of anything in the dossier that was verified by Steele, and if not verified by him, then by whom? Atsme📞📧 06:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Oppose 3 - Isolating the subject from its proper context is not informative. I don't really see the relevance to the Trey Gowdy quote. It's actually kind of predictable, given that he's retiring.- MrX 🖋 02:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Oppose to 1. Too general. The suggestions must be precise, e.g. replace text "..." by "...". Oppose to 2 - some of that content should be recycled. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Oppose. I agree with My very best wishes. Large changes are rarely constructive or successful. Make very specific and small suggestions for improvement. There is also too much conflation with the Nunes memo and its fall-out. Take it there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Let's just stop right here. I can see that local consensus is not going to agree, so I will call an RfC in a couple of days. Atsme📞📧 06:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Grassley-Graham Memo

"Accordlingly, we are referring Christopher Steele to the Department of Justice for potential violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001"Phmoreno (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

+

References

Well that was redacted to meaninglessness. I think we need to wait until any court case so we can in actuality see the accusations beyond "He did something".Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also a primary source, but secondary RS will pick up on it and comment. Then we'll have something we can use here. In fact, there has already been commentary, and British intelligence is very upset. Treating a trusted and reliable source this way has a chilling effect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC) (Self redacted. BullRangifer (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC))

And this is pretty much soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it is starting to be picked up Fox, Slate, and Bloomberg. Should probably be added here and Nunes memo. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe what I'm reading above, not to mention the manner in which my updates were received by what appears to be OWN. It was perfectly fine to create not one, but two articles based on nothing but unsubstantiated allegations, yet now that new information has surfaced that doesn't fit the prevailing POV narrative here, despite the fact that MSM has published this information, it is being refused? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This certainly has relevance to this article, but I'm seeing much of connection to the Nunes memo.- MrX 🖋 18:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The tie is the sources are making that connection and how it validates parts of the Nunes memos. PackMecEng (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, there is much more that needs to be added to this article in addition to (Pt 1) Nunes' memo. Since Trump's tweets are relevant as are actual documents and letters, the content of the FBI's (rather forced) release of relevant text messages as well as the criminal referral of Steele by Grassley-Graham (letter) would be of equal importance. There's also the litigation against Buzz Feed for publishing the dossier which should also be included, as there are ample RS that can be cited, such as Daily Caller, Reuters, Washington Times, Politico, CNN, and plenty of others. All views about Steele's credibility need to be stated, too. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is refusing to cover this. It will get the coverage it deserves.

BTW, Daily Caller, although not on our blacklist, is not a RS, and to a lesser degree the same applies to The Washington Times. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, so is CNN according to Media Bias Fact Check - it gets the same rating as Daily Caller but I already explained to you about what constitutes a RS. I can post it again if you need it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not clear on why "mediabiasfactcheck.com" is at all relevant to the reliability of a source. I think multiple people have already explained to you about how you don't actually seem to understand what constitutes a RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of Media Bias Fact Check and it doesn't appear WP has either. In any case, if they rate Daily Caller and CNN the same, they are clearly not RS. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

They used to be more useful, but they are user generated, like IMDB, and subject to manipulation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right now, my eyes are on the Nunes memo (part 1). I would be interested to know what anyone thinks is missing from that article. I don't think the Daily caller is really considered a reliable source (isn't it a blog started by someone who quit Breitbart in a huff?). I would steer away from the Washington Times also.- MrX 🖋 19:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see the Washington Times is consider a reliable source according to RSN. PackMecEng (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. It's a moonie paper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to take it to RSN but so far they say it is fine for the most part. PackMecEng (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"but so far they say it is fine for the most part" - except they don't. Come on, it's not like this is hard to check [8].Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup that is the most recent I saw for it as well. That discussion also lists past discussions on it as well. Saying yup reliable, maybe not top tier but certainly useable. PackMecEng (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm also not clear on what exactly people want to do with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You sure that is the one that you saw? Because what it actually says is:

" WT regularly publishes fringe theories"

" WT uses the fonts and style of a reliable source, but the content is frequently quite poor and it's best avoided in most cases"

And other discussions say similar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like cherry picking. We could also go with "he Washington Times probably meets rs" or "My initial thoughts are that it's reliable" or "I don't split hairs. It is a reliable source" or "While no doubt the WT meets the low standards of rs" or "The Washington times has rarely been caught in synthesis or exaggeration of the news in all its 30 years of history". So generally yes, it meets RS. I am not sure the push back you have for this. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Justice Department is clearly a primary RS and that is acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines for something that is not subject to mis-interpretation, namely that Steele was referred for criminal investigation. Furthermore, it is backed by valid secondary RS's. Where is it going? It questions the credibility of the dossier, along with much other information that has been revealed in the last two weeks, such as Steele leaking info to Yahoo News that was cited in FISA warrant on Carter Page, who by the way was an FBI informant who supplied information leading to the prosecution of s Russian spy just months before Page was named as a foreign agent (spy) in a Title 1 FISA.Phmoreno (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

One more time. I don't care about your personal opinions. What are you proposing with regard to the article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not my opinion, just facts. As for improving the article, include more of the facts, starting with Steel being referred for criminal investigation and Steele leaking to Yahoo. Phmoreno (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

" It questions the credibility of the dossier" <-- opinion, not fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read anyone say that the FBI needed a tip from Lindsey Graham to know whether to investigate Steele. He's been front page news for roughly a year. FBI is on the job. Phil, do you really think this is noteworthy as anything other than sabotage? Read how mainstream sources describe the Congressional Republicans' manouevring SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Phil, we need to include what widespread mainstream RS secondary sources report. Please read WP:WEIGHT. The sources will guide us to determine which facts we need more of and which facts we don't need to put in an encyclopedia article. The referral and the discussion with Isikoff have been known for some time and so what? They're mainly of interest in the context of the conspiracy theories promoted by Nunes and the memo and the defamation of Isikoff as part of that initiative. That breathless Fox news video clip is quite something "...he was desperate to make sure Trump would not be elected President..." Question Phil. If you had just inadvertently discovered that a presidential candidate appeared to be compromised by a hostile power, what would you do? Chill out with tea and crumpets? SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, read the MSM sources I've already cited which include statements of fact that are verifiable. How can you possibly argue in favor of exclusion for acts of the congressional investigative committees - House & Senate - that have been published by multiple sources? The arguments against inclusion are not convincing, and are clearly POV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme! It's even worse than that... I am the one who argued we didn't need to cover Dr. Jackson's medical media show after POTUS had his annual physical. When in doubt, leave it out! SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the argument here is, but from my impression of what we already have in this article, I think we're only missing one thing: the underlying allegation, which is directly related to the dossier and discussed here. ^Falling_Gravity 05:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Good addition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Newsweek the Steele's criminal referral was for "inconsistencies", "Lying to FBI". Phmoreno (talk) 01:07, February 20, 2018‎ (UTC)

Phmoreno, that's an excellent find. I have added it here. If you feel it should be worded differently or placed in a better location, feel free to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Fox News? Seriously?Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous sources

We don't know who they are, nor are we supposed to...at this point in the investigation. Steele knows their names, and so do some other people in intelligence, and Robert Mueller has probably interviewed them. We will never know who they are, or their lives and jobs will be compromised. They will also be useless as sources in the future. That's how these things are supposed to work.

• Anonymous ≠ non-existent/unknown

(Yes, this is really "duh" information, but some people often mention "anonymous sources", as if it were a valid argument to diss the dossier. It's not.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What is important to this article is not the unsubstantiated allegations and "unknown Russian sources" that Steele colluded with while gathering opposition research for the DNC & Clinton campaign. The important information should be focused on the facts that have been compiled by the intelligence community, part of which involves a criminal referral on Steele per the following RS: Fox News, Slate, Politico, and The Hill. It appears at least one house of cards is collapsing, and the information needs to be included in this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Really need to quit it with the WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The criminal referral involves: 1. Him not tellinh the FBI about media contacts. 2. Made by a politically motivated GOP Senator. I don't see anything that discredits the document here. Do you?Casprings (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It establishes him as a unreliable source for court processes. As more and more of the FISA stuff is shown to not be possible without the dossier, the author being a unreliable source would not be a good thing. But does it directly discredit the dossier itself? Not really, just the investigation as a whole as honestly very few people took the dossier as fact to begin with. PackMecEng (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It establishes him as a unreliable source for court processes... according to some Wikipedia editor named PackMecEng.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Which we both know, is the best source around! But as noted below it is starting to get more coverage. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Casprings but your argument for exclusion is not convincing. NPOV is policy, and this article is lacking in that department. The criminal referral involves Christopher Steele, it is published in RS the same way all the unsubstantiated allegations in the dossier were published (in 2 articles) and should be included as well as the litigations against Buzz Feed for publishing the dossier as I mentioned above. The winning argument here has been that we include what MSM reports. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC) ^{Adding another RS CNN 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)}

I see nothing in these articles that suggest collusion, that suggests any house of cards is collapsing, or suggests it establishes him as a unreliable source for court processes. These are all SYNTH and POV. O3000 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Several mention collusion with Steele and the Clinton campaign. Others right now are opinion sources we would have to attribute to them for sources on Steele being unreliable, so that can wait. PackMecEng (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I looked at each link again and see nothing about collusion. Repeating this here would appear to raise BLP issues. O3000 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Several mention collusion with Steele and the Clinton campaign" <--- what in the world does this even mean???? "Collusion" between an employer and employee? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Steele did not know about DNC/Clinton as the ultimate customers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

1. What exactly is any of this about? It's like there's some part of a conversation missing, probably because 2. This isn't a forum so quit speculating about what you think is collapsing or not collapsing or whatever else.

Focus on article improvement rather than pushing your own idiosyncratic theories. There's twitter for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What we need to focus on is NPOV, not the POV pushing arguments of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. The arguments I've been reading for not including this important information are the same arguments that were shot down when this article was created - are we dealing with a double standard? The spin-off article was created on the same unsubstantiated allegations that comprise the dossier - one in the same - and now many of the same editors who supported inclusion of unsubstantiated allegations are opposing statements of fact. The IDONTLIKEIT and DIDNTHEARTHAT arguments are unconvincing, and disruptive. Please, let's not escalate this any further than it has already advanced. Where is MelanieN? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, no one has suggested we shouldn't mention this. Contribute, rather than complain. Suggest an edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I have suggested edits - scroll up to a few of the sections above this one, some of which are now hatted to avoid disruption, but why should those of us who have challenged NPOV in this article always be the ones whose suggestions are ignored? Edits that would eliminate the bulk of the NPOV issues (WEIGHT & BALANCE) and actually update this article are denied by local consensus - which tends to support the OWN concerns - and ironically the same arguments that were used to support inclusion of the dossier allegations are rejected now that the tide has turned. Surprise, surprise. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What IDONTLIKEIT and DIDNTHEARTHAT arguments? As said above, please focus on article improvements instead of indulging in vague criticisms. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think MelanieN is on vacation for a couple of weeks. PackMecEng (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Then we can either (1) call an RfC or (2) take it to DR or (3) simply add the well-sourced information the same way the article "owners" have been adding their WEIGHT-Y versions (and yes, the edit summary supports my position), and if the well-sourced material is reverted, NPOV/N may be the final "peaceful" option before AN/I. The aggressiveness shown in keeping well-sourced information out of this article is very disconcerting. I'm also of the mind that a POV tag needs to be added to this article - the one I added to the spin-off was removed and I have sought the advice of an admin. The double-standard (and noncompliance with NPOV) is quite disconcerting, especially considering the DS that are in place. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is now twice you have cast aspersions. Please be civil and examine your own behavior. O3000 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations of aspersions when there are none. In fact, you are casting aspersions, but I have no intention of arguing with you. Offering options are not aspersions, and I suggest you learn the difference. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? AN/I, article "owners", aggressiveness shown in keeping well-sourced information out of this article is very disconcerting, double-standard (and noncompliance with NPOV) is quite disconcerting, DS, DIDNTHEARTHAT, IDONTLIKEIT, disruptive. Work on the article, not against other editors. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of the creation of the dossier

Timeline: The making of the Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier (Emphasis added)

BullRangifer (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Hmmm.... Steele-Trump-Russia dossier has a nice ring to it, and it would satisfy (almost) everyone. Just sayin'... -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Still crummy, but much better than what we have now - especially since there's a few other proto-dossiers floating around out there. Xerton (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Shearer dossier is around now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Some problems with recent additions

@Bullrangifer: Thanks for improving the refs, but I wanted to let you know I've found some wording problems and inaccuracies in these recent additions. First of all, the word "clarify" is usually best to avoid because of WP:WTW. Next the wording "After media speculation that the accusations against the Trump–Russia dossier made in the Nunes memo would serve to invalidate the legitimacy of Robert Mueller's Special counsel investigation," should be more specific to what "media" is being referred to. This article attributes it to a blog post from Fox News contributor Sara Carter. Finally, the WaPo fact check doesn't say anything to the effect of "central accusation," and your addition misattributes the words Devin Nunes said in an interview to the Nunes memo. ^Falling_Gravity 19:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific and constructive observations. I'll try to fix it this evening. I may have gotten content from two refs mixed up. It's good you removed it. We want to get this right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, I hope my changes satisfy your concerns. Let me know. I was in a hurry and had to leave, and normally I would have checked my work more carefully. That's how mistakes happen, just like drunk editing can do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Look good. ^Falling_Gravity 07:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The name of this article is POV

Nothing about this so-called "dossier" has been proven to enough of a reasonable standard that it can honestly be characterized as indicative of a nexus between Trump/Russia. There would be more truth in a title of the Hillary Funded Anti-Trump "Dossier" than there is in the current title. Xerton (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This has recently been discussed, and consensus support the current title, per WP:TITLE.- MrX 🖋 22:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... It strikes me as rather odd that the current title follows the common title and is a descriptive title neutrally based on the actual contents, while the suggested title is based on an editor's POV, and the argument is of the "righting great wrongs" variety. Is there something wrong with this picture? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm it seems to me that some editors here may be approaching consensus from a non-collaborative stance and may be having WP:OWN issues here. Xerton (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent Requested move discussion

Has been discussed here: Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_6#Requested_move_10_January_2018, with the current name being the consensus one. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Steele-Trump-Russia dossier has a nice ring to it, and it would satisfy (almost) everyone. Just sayin'... (copied from above)

Because the Shearer-Trump-Russia dossier is getting more attention, maybe we should reconsider titles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggest Steele Trump-Russia dossier & Shearer Trump-Russia dossier; separate the creators from the content. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Salacious and unverified

It's POV to omit these words from the lede - they are defining characteristics as per James Comey Xerton (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's an old and incomplete statement, but it is covered. In the lead the degree of verification is mentioned, with much more in the body, and the actual quote is discussed in the body. Things have changed a lot since then. The "salacious" part is only one of many allegations, but the tabloid journalism tendencies got the upper hand with most media and it got mentioned a lot, giving it far more weight than deserved. The other allegations are much more sober, serious, and some verified. We don't give undue weight to minor details, even if sensational headlines do. We are more serious here, but we do mention the quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

section 1.1

I'm unclear why section 1.1 and subsections is where it is. Section six specifically covers Reactions, so why should these two segments be up near the top? Further, the use of Paste as a source is...surprising. It's a music and entertainment website. The piece that contains these segments is a very long screed about Trump. I think this one opinion is being given undue weight. Anastrophe (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me venture an explanation. I have placed the two (so far, since there will be more) under 1.1 because they are specific to the allegations. The Reactions in section six are to the dossier as a whole.

I'm not sure how to reply to the second concern as I don't normally allow the source's POV to affect that decision. The magazine is a RS. A screed FOR Trump in a RS which seriously comments on the allegations could also be eligible for inclusion. This was a list (not a screed) of 31 allegations found in the dossier. Not all are significant enough for mention. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE for the required inclusion of such allegations (there are myriad RS). Since the included comment is clearly the author's opinion, our policies dictate that we treat it as we do anywhere else at Wikipedia, IOW we attribute it. We can also include opposing POV. That's what we do. You're welcome to contribute. -- BullRangifer (talk)

My concern is that a political opinion piece, on a site that labels itself as a music and entertainment site, is being give undue weight, all other things being equal. Countless people have claimed treason and worse; since these are allegations, as yet unsubstantiated, random opinion is worth about a buck fifty. I characterized it as a screed due to nuggets such as " If he repeatedly went bankrupt running casinos in the 1990s, why would we expect Trump steaks to do any better? He sold them at the freaking Sharper Image for Christ's sake." The author of the piece holds the opinion that the matter is treasonous. Set aside that you characterized it as "Jacob Weindling described this deal as [...]". There's leakage here. There is no deal, there is an alleged deal. It's also worth pointing out that that section opens with "The allegation of a 19% privatized stake in Rosneft [...]". That allegation is not detailed in the Allegations section immediately above, nor is it detailed in the sources you provided. The article should have that specific claim detailed before providing reaction to it. I'll be honest, I don't have a dog in this fight. I think that 'reactions to the allegations' belong in the 'reactions' section, even as subsections as you please. I believe 'Paste' magazine's opinion piece is being given undue weight. Far more weighty RS have said similar, albeit perhaps a bit less histrionically. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Anastrophe, you are very welcome to propose those more notable sources which say the same. I'd be happy to add them. I also understand your concern about mentioning it without it being presented in the allegations section. That will, hopefully, be fixed soon. Please participate at the RfC about this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Including weak sources like this one is like feeding starving children thing gruel and saying "what's wrong whit that?". Far too often, I see thin gruel sources used to tip the narrative scale towards the derisive sense in various articles. That this seems to happen the most with the articles of notable conservatives could just be a coincidence, but perhaps not. Our job isn't to reinforce the personal political biases or personal suspicions of the editors; our job is to dispassionately write neutral articles. But this article needs work, if we're going to get there, here.Xerton (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the specific reactions to the overall section about reactions. No opinion on contents or source quality. — JFG ^talk 16:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree with the underlying sentiment, I'm not sure what makes the opinions of Jacob Weindling of Paste particularly worthy of inclusion. Someone with a legal background would certainly be preferable. PvOberstein (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What in the dossier was verified?

"But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. 2602:306:cd24:b470:e142:c5ae:5aae:d9a2 (talk) 13:37, February 20, 2018‎ (UTC)

At this point, I'm afraid it has become difficult to give much credence to anything leaking out of the majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

....and anything political from Fox News. Consider the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So, Fox News is not a RS for this article, while an obscure music and entertainment site's opinion piece is? Regarding "Paste" magazine, you previously wrote "I'm not sure how to reply to the second concern as I don't normally allow the source's POV to affect that decision." How do you square that with the above? Anastrophe (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to propose an edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Anastrophe, the reliability of a source here depends on how it's used. Factual accuracy and fair commentary are also important, and where Fox often fails. For mundane facts it's okay, but for politics it can't be trusted because it's a GOP propaganda channel and is very selective in what it covers and refuses to cover, and in how it does it when it does. For politics it should be used with caution. When we can find the same subject covered elsewhere, we should try to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"McCabe was asked to point to anything in the dossier that he knew to be true. McCabe noted that the dossier said, accurately, that the unpaid, low-level Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page visited Moscow in July 2016."

References

"these are not precise quotes" enough said, so in at least some cases it was not a case he could not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, but rather could not verify versions of the allegation he was being asked about.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. These quotes from the Examiner are also telling:

"After the questioning established that McCabe would not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, he was asked if he stood by its veracity. McCabe said he did.

"And that was the gist of the questioning on the dossier. McCabe never claimed the FBI had verified the substantive allegations in the dossier, but he also never said the FBI had not been able to verify the dossier's explosive allegations, either." (Emphasis added)

BTW, the Examiner, just like the Washington Times (often confused with the famed Washington Post) isn't a super good source. They are both, just like Fox News, pushing the Putin/Trump party line and often unreliable on these subjects. For mundane facts they are okay, and in this case they still reported part of it right. This would not have been allowed at Fox News.

Keep in mind that the House Committee has a very different mission than the Senate Committee. McCabe was a hostile witness before a committee engaged in a distraction/cover-up campaign to protect Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing investigation, and law enforcement officials are not going to be completely forthright about this. That's the way it's supposed to be. We now know that some things which Steele's sources alleged were things only later shown to be true by the media and intelligence community reports. His sources proved to be accurate. We will learn more with time. Mueller's investigation is keeping their cards close so suspects will not be tipped off. Be patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich recently broke a story that exposes McCabe. Cernovich said it will take the mainstream media a while to verify, so I won't post a link, but if you are curious you can easily find it. Include 302 notes in your search.Phmoreno (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Cernovich is not a RS for anything political. He's like Limbaugh. Better to never expose your mind to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about descriptive heading

I added this heading so the two four subsections would make sense. Without it there was uncertainty about why they existed. I wanted to remove any ambiguity:

• Trump–Russia dossier#Actions interpreted as confirming veracity

That was reverted with an argument that did not make sense to me. When I restored it, I accidentally did it without an edit summary, so I quickly reversed and redid it with the edit summary "The heading is merely a description of the content." That's what our headings do.

What do others think? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Gah! I misunderstood the rules above and will self-revert. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss this. If no one bothers to respond, I'll restore that heading AND move four two subsections up to the Veracity section where they belong.

Two of the subsections aren't mere "Reactions", but speak to confirmation of the "Veracity" of those allegations and Steele's sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Since no one has responded or objected, I have restored a version of the heading and moved two of the subsections to a more logical spot. Let's see if that's better. The disruptive editor who reverted me has just returned from a well-deserved block, but seems to be taking a hiatus, at least for now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Washington Times item

"Sources speculated to The Washington Times that it would be embarrassing for Mr. McCabe to condemn a political opposition research paper on which his agents based decisions to open a counterintelligence investigation and interview witnesses."Phmoreno (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That counterfactual story is a good illustration of why the Times isn't normally considered a RS for politics. They are pushing a counterfactual conspiracy theory. At least they were honest enough to state it was speculation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

PH, Please don't bring up the Washington Times again. It's garbage. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I'm having a hard time trying to understand your "counterfactual conspiracy theory" comment.Phmoreno (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it is a "report" based on 1) speculation by 2) anonymous sources to 3) the Moonie Times, a paper that has never had any credibility and never will under its current ownership and editorial policy. And it is 4) counterfactual because it has been thoroughly established, and confirmed by the Nunes memo itself, that the dossier was not the reason for opening the counterintelligence operation; it was opened because of Papadopoulos blabbing to the Australians. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Speculation? Subsequent events led to McCabe leaving the FBI and an investigation of the FBI and DOJ by the Inspector General. Whether or not the Papadopoulos conversation with Alexander Downer started the investigation, what is in question here is the FISA warrant on Carter Page, for which the dossier was used. Again, the IG's report is expected to cover this. Carter Page's trip to Moscow was public information, but his meetings with certain Russians named in the dossier have not been confirmed.Phmoreno (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. The report you are quoting SAYS it is speculation. "Sources speculated to The Washington Times..." --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That was then, this is now.04:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Phmoreno (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is synthesis. We go wit what the sources say, nit analyse them in the light of subsequent events (which I am sure many here can given a different interpretation to then you).Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)