Talk:Steele dossier

Addressing Multiple Factual Inaccuracies (6) in the current Steele Dossier Article

In this post, I identify six factual inaccuracies in the Steele Dossier article and propose targeted revisions to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) standards. BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have given each topic a section heading so it's easier to deal with each one. Also added signature to each one and bolded and/or indented certain elements for ease, all per WP:REFACTOR. I hope I haven't done anything that negatively affects your intentions. Feel free to undo any of my edits that are not improvements. There is a lot here, so let's work together to get this right. It's complicated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy 1: Misrepresentation of the Initial Fusion GPS Research as a “Republican Operation”

The following paragraph in the article contains a factual inaccuracy:

"The opposition research conducted by Fusion GPS on Donald Trump was in two distinct operations, each with a different client. First were the Republicans, funded by The Washington Free Beacon. Then came the Democrats, funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

The Republican operation, from October 2015 to May 2016, focused on Trump's domestic business and entertainment activities; was performed by Fusion GPS; and used Wayne Barrett's files and public sources."

The term "Republican operation" is factually incorrect and misleading. The Washington Free Beacon, which funded the initial phase of Fusion GPS’s opposition research, is an independent conservative-leaning publication funded by Paul Singer, a prominent conservative donor. (Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html) It is not affiliated with the Republican Party. Referring to this phase as a "Republican operation" creates a false impression that the Republican Party, or its official entities, were involved in commissioning or funding the research.

In contrast, the term "Democratic operation" used for the later phase of Fusion GPS's work is accurate, as this research was directly funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign. (Source: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93)

The false equivalence between these phases violates Wikipedia's Editing policies vis a vis a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) by misrepresenting the distinct origins and funding sources of the research.

Additionally, the cited sources (footnotes 35 and 36) explicitly refute any connection between the Free Beacon’s research and the Steele dossier. For example:

- The Free Beacon's statement:

"All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele."

- Testimony from Michael Goldfarb:

"I feel very confident that no material that was produced and delivered to us appears in that dossier. It was all new information to me when I read it."

These statements confirm that the Free Beacon’s funding and Fusion GPS’s initial research were entirely separate from the Steele dossier. The term "Republican operation" conflates unrelated phases of research, creating a narrative unsupported by reliable sources and violating Wikipedia's Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) policy.

The article must be revised to adhere to Wikipedia’s content standards. For example, the paragraph could state:

"Fusion GPS was initially hired in October 2015 by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump’s domestic business and entertainment activities. This research, which concluded in May 2016, was funded by Paul Singer, a conservative donor, and was unrelated to the Steele dossier. Later, Fusion GPS was retained by Perkins Coie on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign to conduct further opposition research, including work that led to the Steele dossier."

This revision ensures accuracy by removing misleading language, properly contextualizing the two phases of research, and avoiding false equivalences between them. It also adheres to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) policies, presenting a clear and factual distinction between the Free Beacon’s independent funding and the Democratic-aligned funding of the Steele dossier.

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, you are the only one to ever mention any possible misunderstanding, but I take it seriously and have now made some tweaks to resolve the issue. Does that help? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It slightly better but I’m not sure why it’s necessary to refer to “conservative Republicans”? Do the voting preferences of private donors absolutely have to figure? BostonUniver (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I also see you kept the term “Conservative Republican operation” - unless you can show that the Republican Party officially signed off on the oppo research in the way the DNC did it’s trying to say that apples are oranges BostonUniver (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, the sources described them as conservatives and Republicans. Not all Republicans are noted as "conservatives", but since sources do it in this case, I have just copied them. Do you have a better description? I did not "keep" “Conservative Republican operation”. That is a new description rather than the previous "Republican", which can indeed be misunderstood to mean the party itself. I have now added "some". "some conservative Republicans" makes it clear it is not "all" or the "party" itself. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to address the concern, but the changes still risk conflating a private donor’s activity with an officially sanctioned Republican Party operation. The phrase “some conservative Republicans,” while less sweeping than “Republican operation,” still implies broader or party-based involvement. Yet the sources confirm:

The Free Beacon and Paul Singer are not formal arms of the Republican Party.

Singer’s funding does not equate to RNC or other official GOP approval.

Neither the Republican National Committee nor any official party body commissioned or reimbursed Fusion GPS for this research.

By contrast, the second phase was expressly paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, making “Democratic operation” accurate in a way “Republican operation” (or even “some conservative Republicans”) is not.

Sources (e.g., The New York Times, The Free Beacon statement) specify that the research was funded by a conservative donor and an independent conservative publication.

They do not say the “Republican Party” or “some conservative Republicans” in an official sense.

Even after the tweak to “some conservative Republicans,” readers may still walk away assuming endorsement by a formal Republican entity. A more accurate, policy-compliant revision could read:

“Fusion GPS was initially hired in October 2015 by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication funded by Paul Singer, a conservative donor. This research ended in May 2016 and focused on Trump’s domestic business and entertainment activities, entirely separate from the later Steele dossier work. Subsequently, Fusion GPS was hired by Perkins Coie on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign to investigate Trump’s Russian connections, leading to the Steele dossier.”

This phrasing eliminates the misleading “Republican” label while retaining facts that it was independent, donor-driven research (not GOP-sponsored).

Thank you BostonUniver (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Would it be impossible to edit the relevant passages in a way that isn’t misleading or inaccurate? Refer to the “Free Beacon Operation” rather than the odd “Conservative Republicans”. Thanks BostonUniver (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added "not the Republican Party". It is now impossible for anyone to misunderstand it. So far, you seem to be the only person who has done so, so this should resolve your issue with it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, the edit you made changing "First were the Republicans, funded by 'The Washington Free Beacon'" to "The first clients were some conservative Republicans, funded by 'The Washington Free Beacon'," is not only inaccurate for the same reason as before but actually adds another factual error into the text.

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, was the sole client that initially engaged Fusion GPS for opposition research on multiple Republican presidential candidates, including Donald Trump. There is no evidence to suggest that individual conservative Republicans, separate from the publication, directly hired Fusion GPS for this research. See CBS News, "The conservative website the Washington Free Beacon triggered the research into then-candidate Donald Trump by Fusion GPS that eventually led to the now-infamous Trump 'dossier,' the publication's editor-in-chief and chairman acknowledged in a statement Friday night." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-free-beacon-funded-initial-fusion-gps-anti-trump-research-dossier/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The passage should be revised to accurately reflect the facts, avoiding any misleading implications about individual Republicans directly funding Fusion GPS. A corrected version could read:

"The opposition research conducted by Fusion GPS on Donald Trump occurred in two distinct operations, each with a different client. The first client was The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, which funded research into multiple Republican candidates, including Trump. The second clients were the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which funded further research."

To reiterate all mention of "Republicans" whether they are "conservative Republicans" or not funding the first phase of research on Trump through Fusion GPS should be removed to make it clear that the Free Beacon funded this work.

Please don't assume this "resolves" the factual errors if you are unwilling or unable to engage with the issues adequately. As you are struggling to maintain veracity when editing on this issue, what can we do to get a third party to review? BostonUniver (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please AGF. I am trying. I was under the impression that unknown Republicans got the Free Beacon to hire Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Republican candidates, including Trump. Marco Rubio denied that he was the one, so who were the ones who did it? Was it other Republican candidates? We may never know. I was tempted to include "unknown Republicans", but didn't do it as I didn't immediately have a RS for that wording. It may exist, but I don't remember where. Since we don't know, we can avoid that issue completely by just saying it was the Free Beacon, as you suggest. I have now installed your version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, we are almost there, I think the heading "Conservative Republican operation does not produce dossier" just needs to be changed to something like "The Washington Free Beacon operation" and the accuracy of this issue is resolved. BostonUniver (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your protectionism toward the GOP, even against mentioning that Republicans were behind the funding of that oppo research, but just to put this to rest I'll make that change, even though it smacks of political protectionism, a forbidden practice here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

you probably don't need to venture into personal attacks and abandoning AGF. I have pointed out mentioning the Republicans when talking about funding by the free Beacon is factually inaccurate which you have accepted. Thanks BostonUniver (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how it's inaccurate. It was not the Free Beacon but some unknown members of the Republican party, most likely Trump's competing candidates, who were funding it. It may have been Singer who did the funding for them, but we don't know that for certain. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless you can substantiate the following with a reputable source: "It was not the Free Beacon but some unknown members of the Republican party, most likely Trump's competing candidates, who were funding it." Then I don't see why this Wikipedia page should feature your original research. That's why its inaccurate BostonUniver (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not article content. It is just what I understood from all the sources I have read over the years. Speculation and OR are expressly allowed on article talk pages when they are part of editors explaining their understandings and their efforts to create content. Without RS, that will not become part of the article, and I don't have them at my fingertips now. At this juncture, it doesn't seem to be very important, so I'm not going to deal with it now. If I suddenly come across RS that touch on this, I might return to it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy 2: Misrepresentation of the Court’s Findings in the Carter Page Defamation Suit

The following paragraph in the article contains a factual inaccuracy:

“On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost for their articles describing his activities mentioned in the Steele dossier. The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true.”

This claim relies on three sources, including a Law360 article dated February 11, 2021, and two Bloomberg Law articles. However, the phrasing is misleading and violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) policies. The court’s ruling did not confirm the accuracy of the Steele dossier’s claims or Page’s alleged activities. Instead, it focused on defamation law principles, including the “fair report privilege” and the determination that the articles were “substantially true.”

The Law360 article and Judge Karsnitz’s opinion clarify that the court found the articles accurately reflected public allegations and government investigations into Page, which Page himself acknowledged. For example, the ruling states:

“As a general matter, the article simply says that U.S. intelligence agencies were investigating reports of plaintiff's meetings with Russian officials, which plaintiff admits is true, and led to his surveillance for over a year under FISA warrants. The article does not claim that Plaintiff actually met with those officials.”

Page’s admission was limited to the fact that investigations occurred and that he was under surveillance; it does not constitute an acknowledgment of the Steele dossier’s allegations or the truth of the articles beyond their reporting on these investigations. Presenting this as a judicial validation of the Steele dossier misleads readers and implies a connection unsupported by the sources.

Legal Misinterpretation and Context from the Judge's Opinion

The article’s phrasing also misconstrues Judge Karsnitz’s legal reasoning, which centered on the “substantial truth” and “fair report privilege” doctrines under defamation law. These doctrines protect reporting on government proceedings if the reporting is fair and accurate, even if the allegations themselves remain unproven. Specifically:

Substantial Truth: The court ruled that the gist of the articles—that U.S. intelligence agencies were investigating Page—was true, regardless of whether the Steele dossier’s underlying claims were verified. Fair Report Privilege: The court found that the articles were protected as fair and accurate accounts of government investigations, stating:

“The Isikoff Article provided a fair and accurate report of these proceedings... As a fair and accurate report of this investigation, the Isikoff Article is protected.”

The judge did not evaluate or endorse the Steele dossier’s claims about Page but rather assessed whether the media reports accurately described public allegations and investigations. Thus, the assertion that “Page admitted the articles… were essentially true” conflates the court’s findings with the dossier’s veracity, creating a misleading narrative.

Proposed Revision

To address these issues, the paragraph could be revised as follows:

“On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost regarding their reporting on allegations involving his potential contacts with Russian officials, as mentioned in the Steele dossier. The court found that the articles accurately reported on government investigations into Page and were either true or protected under the ‘fair report privilege.’ The ruling did not address the veracity of the Steele dossier’s claims.”

This revision accurately reflects the scope of the court’s ruling, avoids implying validation of the Steele dossier, and adheres to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) standards.

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The context is that Page had initially (not under oath) completely denied meeting with any senior Russian officials at all. Later we learned that was a total lie, and that he was obviously trying to hide his actions. Why did he lie so much? What was he hiding? Did it surprise him that someone obviously very close to Sechin had revealed details of a meeting unknown by anyone else, and Steele's sources had gotten the real story? It makes one wonder if the murder of Oleg Erovinkin was because he leaked the meeting. We used to have the following section about him:

On December 26, 2016, Oleg Erovinkin, a former KGB/FSB general, was found dead in his car in Moscow. Erovinkin was a key liaison between Sechin and Putin. Steele claimed much of the information came from a source close to Sechin. According to Christo Grozev, a journalist at Risk Management Lab, a think tank based in Bulgaria, the circumstances of Erovinkin's death were "mysterious". Grozev suspected Erovinkin helped Steele compile the dossier on Trump and suggests the hypothesis that the death may have been part of a cover-up by the Russian government. Mark Galeotti, senior research fellow at the Institute of International Relations Prague, who specializes in Russian history and security, rejected Grozev's hypothesis. According to Harding, Steele denied that Erovinkin was his direct source, but "the information could nonetheless have originated with Erovinkin" and he would be held responsible for the leak as one of the heads of Rosneft's administration in charge of security.

Later, under very direct questioning, Page tried to avoid perjury by gradually revealing (under force and very grudgingly) more and more of the truth, without fully admitting all the dossier's allegations. They had to pull every bit of information out of him, like a dentist performing a root canal. His many lies (most told out of court and not under oath) had to be rolled back, one by one.

His testimony was so revealing that it was seen by journalists as a confirmation of the essence of what Steele had written, even if one name might have been wrong. Page all but admitted the allegations. It seems the only thing Steele may have gotten wrong is that Page spoke directly with Sechin. Page, liar that he is, may actually have met with Sechin, but he did not admit it. He did finally admit to meeting with Sechin's direct representative, so the essence of Steele's reporting was accurate, and the journalists wrote as much. There was communication, even if indirectly, between Page and Sechin. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to the imolicationthat Carter Page “all but confirmed” the Steele dossier, no court has ever authenticated the truth of those allegations. Judge Karsnitz’s defamation ruling simply concluded that Yahoo! News and HuffPost accurately reported on official investigations—finding the articles “substantially true” under defamation law, not that Page admitted to meeting senior Russian officials.

You point to Page’s evolving statements as outright “lies,” yet contradictory remarks alone do not legally establish perjury or validate the dossier. No government investigation—including the Mueller probe—charged Page with any wrongdoing despite his inconsistent recollections, so calling them evidence of guilt or confirmation of the dossier remains an overreach.

Likewise, speculation linking Oleg Erovinkin’s death to leaks about a Page–Igor Sechin meeting is unsubstantiated. Multiple Russia experts, including Mark Galeotti, dismiss such theories as lacking evidence, and Christopher Steele himself denied that Erovinkin was his direct source. Without hard proof, these scenarios remain conjecture.

Finally, while some journalists interpret Page’s admissions as a near match to Steele’s reporting, media impressions are not legal verdicts. Official inquiries criticized reliance on aspects of the dossier—pointing to errors in FISA applications—undermining its overall credibility. In short, there is no legal or conclusive evidence verifying the dossier’s core claims about Page. BostonUniver (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic. You are spreading to the whole dossier. This is about Carter Page and allegations of his meetings with senior Russian officials. You mention "legally establish" and "legal verdicts". We use them when they exist, but their lack does not mean we can't document "media impressions" written in RS. In fact, that is our primary source of article content. We document that "some journalists interpret Page’s admissions as a near match to Steele’s reporting", and that's good enough for content, as long as we attribute it as their impressions. BTW, I did not mention the Erovinkin matter as a proven fact.

So stick to the topic. We are not talking about the whole dossier. The dossier is lots of parts, and we are discussing one part. The lead does summarize the many analyses of its many parts: "Some have been publicly confirmed, others are plausible but not specifically confirmed, and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven." So it remains a fundamental error to claim the dossier is either entirely true or has been debunked. Neither statement is true. The best overall summary I know of is from the subject matter experts at Lawfare. After two years and a thorough examination, they declared: "The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven." That remains true to this day. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

BostonUniver, thank you for pointing out this long-standing misleading content. I have implemented a fix by directly quoting Judge Karsnitz (as cited by Leonard 2021) on the question of Page's "admission".

(For context: Valjean obviously has strong views on this topic and, like Jane Mayer, believes that Page's testimony under oath significantly corroborated the dossier. Therefore, Valjean may have skimmed Leonard's article and concluded that Judge Karsnitz explicitly agreed with Mayer 2018. However, unlike Mayer, Judge Karsnitz did not actually go into the weeds of the allegations in order to establish that the articles by Isikoff et al. are protected speech. Rather, the sheer fact that Page, "at least a limited purpose public figure," was (as all parties acknowledge) under investigation is newsworthy by itself.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: thanks for chiming in. I value your opinions and appreciate more eyes on this. These huge walls of text (larger than many of our articles) are daunting and leave me more, not less, confused about the real point. They often address one point about apples but then include points about oranges, and that just fucks it up. Give me some time to digest this and read the sources again. It's been a long time. I'll try to figure this out. I AGF that BostonUniver is really trying to help, and my experience with them tells me that they often have a point. It's just a matter of how best to solve it. There isn't always only one way to cut a Gordian Knot. Where the heck is Solomon when we need him? Fortunately, there is no deadline here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I don't have access to the full Bloomberg articles or the full court document. Can you provide links for me to access them? I have no problem with you quoting that judge. Direct quotes are often a good thing. One problem with our words "The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true." is that we don't make it clear that we are actually quoting, based on this: "Page ‘admits’ news articles essentially true, judge says" (I have now added quote marks.) What part of the article is that blurb based on? I'd like to see the context. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, unless I am mistaken, you added the factually wrong passage in question to the article in 2021 with Bloomberg Law as footnotes:

"On February 11, 2021, Page lost a defamation suit he had filed against Yahoo! News and HuffPost for their articles which described his activities mentioned in the Steele dossier. The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true."

See: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?diff=1048080934

So I am surprised that you seem to have not read the judgment or the cited sources. If you have then but subsequently forgot their content you have drawn the wrong conclusion from them. BostonUniver (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Most importantly, I have located a copy of the Judge's opinion in Page (Plaintiff) vs Oath Inc (Defendant) and I can see that the quote "essentially true" was MISATTRIBUTED for the past four years to Carter Page when it was in fact attributed to the Defendant (Oath Inc) - "Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint alleging three defenses."

Defendant contends that the Isikoff Article, and the three HuffPost original content articles, are essentially true." (page 4) https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=316680

The misattribution of the quote 'essentially true' in the Steele Dossier article represents a serious violation of both Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy and fundamental journalistic ethics. After reviewing the Judge’s opinion in Page v. Oath Inc., it is clear that this phrase was attributed to the Defendant, Oath Inc., and not to Carter Page, as erroneously reflected in the article. Specifically, the court stated:

'Defendant contends that the Isikoff Article, and the three HuffPost original content articles, are essentially true.' (Page 4)"

This misattribution has remained uncorrected in the Wikipedia article for over four years, perpetuating a false narrative about Carter Page’s position in the case.

It is becoming important to address the role of editor Valjean in maintaining this factual inaccuracy. While it is important to assume good faith, factually wrong content edited into the article by Valjean (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?diff=1048080934) makes a good argument for closer review of more of the claims in article, potentially by way of third party. BostonUniver (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You write "The misattribution of the quote 'essentially true' in the Steele Dossier article..." The source is Leonard, who attributes it to the judge and Page, so your gripe is with Mike Leonard, not me. He wrote: "Page ‘admits’ news articles essentially true, judge says" [1] Please back off and AGF. No one is perfect, and lots of other editors are welcome to discover any errors and fix them. I have fixed many errors through the years, and others have fixed my errors. We work together. Don't create a hostile editing environment. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

What page in that court document are you quoting? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) I found it by using this searchable version. We must be careful to avoid OR here. We cannot assume the use of the words "essentially true" by the defendent in the court source refers to the same thing as when those words are used by Leonard in Leonard's Bloomberg article. If they are about the same thing, then Leonard appears to have made an attribution error, and I cited him, thus leading to an error here.

That's why I'd like access to the full Leonard Bloomberg article. I no longer have access to it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m troubled by your reliance on paywalled sources describing a judgment you don’t appear to have fully read or correctly understood. The actual Delaware court ruling contradicts your claim that Carter Page admitted the articles about his Russian contacts were “essentially true,” since that phrase was used by the defendants, not Page. Using the publicly available judgment isn’t Original Research, but footnotes that don’t match their sources amount to fabrication. No legal or official finding has validated Page’s supposed admissions or tied them to the Steele dossier; those remain unverified speculation. You should correct the misattribution and rely on accurate sourcing going forward. BostonUniver (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I was citing a RS, Leonard's Bloomberg article. I'd like to get access to the full article, as I can't do it anymore. I can usually get access using the Wayback Machine, but that's a fickle method as it can change. Without that context, we cannot assume that those words are referring to the same thing in the two sources. Did Leonard get it wrong? Since you speak (and criticize me) as if you have read the full source, please share a URL or email me the text so I can read the full context. Please tone down your rhetoric. You are not AGF. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

In any case I saw that the wording in the article has been charged from the misleading: "The judge said that Page admitted the articles about his potential contacts with Russian officials were essentially true" to the accurate "The judge said: "The article simply says that U.S. intelligence agencies were investigating reports of plaintiff's meetings with Russian officials, which Plaintiff admits is true."

So I am happy to close the matter, although If no one possesses a copy of the Bloomberg Law article then it should probably be removed as a footnote. Bloomberg Law isn't like Bloomberg, which is a relatively affordable subscription, it's an expensive legal industry resource. On this point: Valjean: "Since you speak (and criticize me) as if you have read the full source" - how would you have ever been able to read the article without a subscription? I haven't read the full article, I don't pretend to and I certainly haven't made any longstanding edits to Wikipedia based on it (burden of proof is on the person making the claim etc). I'm happy to resolve this and move on but I should also note the same issue remains active on the Wikipedia entry for Carter Page himself. BostonUniver (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I just thought you had read it since you were criticizing me. I may have read it several years ago, but I don't remember now. I am still trying to get a copy of that article, because it's possible that Leonard may have goofed, although the statement seems pretty solid (He'd have to have made two goofs!). It's a RS, and it's important to note when a RS makes a mistake. Shit happens, even to good journalists. I was quoting a RS, and will of course try to fix things when later evidence shows a RS made an error. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you finding the Bloomberg law article here. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steele_dossier&diff=prev&oldid=1270672001 Despite you insistence to the contrary, however, the original claim you inserted was factually wrong. The original version misrepresented the court’s finding by implying Page admitted the substance of the allegations—namely, that he met with senior Russian officials—was true. In fact, the judge’s ruling only states that Page acknowledged the existence of an FBI investigation and his FISA surveillance, and that Yahoo! and HuffPost accurately reported those facts. Nowhere in the opinion does it say Page admitted the Steele dossier’s claims or “potential contacts” were “essentially true.” The court’s use of “essentially true” refers to news coverage of the investigation itself—not any admission by Page about the truth of the underlying allegations. Consequently, the wording that Page “admitted” the articles were essentially true about his contacts is incorrect; he merely conceded that there was an investigation and that it led to surveillance, which isn’t the same as admitting the allegations were factually accurate. I hope that helps BostonUniver (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that does help. It was also the defendant and the judge who used the words "essentially true", not Carter Page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, if you are still trying to access the full Leonard article, see here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I did find it and got the context: "Tossing the case, Karsnitz found that Isikoff’s article and the other three news stories were essentially true." Those articles mentioned some dossier allegations, and Karsnitz said those articles were "essentially true". Page did admit that their claims that he was under investigation were true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, although your latest comments highlight Carter Page’s evolving statements about his Russia contacts, they do not align with what Judge Karsnitz actually decided in the February 11, 2021 defamation ruling. The court’s opinion, as reflected in sources such as the Law360 piece of the same date and subsequent Bloomberg Law articles, did not verify the truth of the Steele dossier or Page’s alleged activities. Rather, the decision concluded that the Yahoo! News and HuffPost articles were protected under defamation law because they accurately summarized government investigations—especially the fact that federal authorities were scrutinizing Page, which he himself acknowledged—thus satisfying the standard of “substantial truth.” The judge specifically noted that the coverage described allegations and official inquiries into Page, not that those allegations or the dossier’s claims had been proven correct. He drew on the “fair report privilege” to underscore that reporting on law-enforcement proceedings is generally protected if it is fair and accurate, irrespective of whether the underlying allegations hold up. Therefore, the ruling did not endorse any contention that Page “all but admitted the allegations,” nor did it treat contradictions in his prior public statements as legal confirmation of the dossier. Although journalists may interpret Page’s testimony one way or another, Judge Karsnitz’s decision hinged on whether Yahoo! News and HuffPost responsibly conveyed what government agencies were investigating. It did not validate claims that he met senior Russian officials or authenticate broader aspects of Christopher Steele’s reporting. Without a court’s finding that the dossier’s assertions about Page are proven, citing Page’s shifting narratives as legal proof or as a judicial endorsement of the dossier remains unsupported by the actual text of the opinion and its accompanying sources. BostonUniver (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Factual Inaccuracy 3: Overstating ODNI and Mueller Findings as “Corroboration” of Steele Dossier

The following passage contains a factual inaccuracy:

"The dossier was written from June to December 2016 and contains allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign.[6] Several key dossier allegations made in June 2016 about the Russian government's efforts to get Trump elected, were later described as "prescient"[7] because they were corroborated six months later in the January 2017 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[8][9] and the Mueller Report, namely that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton;[8][10] that he personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"; that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties;[8] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents.[11][12]"

The paragraph claims that the ODNI and Mueller reports “corroborated” the Steele dossier’s depiction of “numerous secretive contacts” between Trump officials and Russian operatives. However, upon examining the cited evidence:

Neither the ODNI assessment (January 2017) nor the Mueller Report (2019) endorses or authenticates the dossier’s details about clandestine or conspiratorial meetings. Footnotes 11 and 12 (NYT and WaPo) discuss undisclosed or mischaracterized communications (Flynn–Kislyak, Manafort–Kilimnik, etc.) but do not conclude these validated Steele’s narrative.

Crucially, footnote 7 (“prescient”) stresses that parts of Steele’s reporting about Russia’s general preference for Trump “have proved broadly accurate” but concedes other parts are unverified, such as Michael Cohen’s alleged Prague trip.

Hence, the statement that ODNI/Mueller “corroborated” the dossier’s specific claims about numerous secretive contacts is a leap beyond what any of these sources actually affirm.

The ODNI’s conclusion on Putin’s preference addresses Russia’s motivations and hacking efforts (DNC hacks, social-media influence). It does not confirm that Steele’s specific stories of clandestine Trump–Russia meetings are accurate. There’s a sharp distinction between “Russia wanted Trump to win” and “the Dossier’s secret contacts were confirmed.”

Mueller did not substantiate the dossier’s most central and specific “secret” meeting claims—like Michael Cohen in Prague or a Carter Page–Rosneft quid pro quo. While Mueller documented real contacts (Manafort–Kilimnik, the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting), these do not match the dossier’s alleged scenarios. Indeed, one of the most notable dossier allegations (Cohen/Prague) remains unverified or contradicted by Cohen’s testimony.

The NYT piece (footnote 11) tallies all known communications—meetings, emails, phone calls—for many campaign figures, but never attributes those findings to the Steele dossier or calls them “corroboration” of it. Likewise, the WaPo discussion (footnote 12) focuses on Flynn’s phone calls with Russia’s ambassador and subsequent legal fallout—again, no mention of validating Steele’s allegations.

Even footnote 7 (the New York Times article calling parts “prescient”) distinguishes between the more general assertion that Russia wanted Trump to win (which turned out to be true) and the unverified or false allegations (e.g., the Cohen-in-Prague trip). Being ‘prescient’ on Russia’s preference does not mean every contact claim in the Dossier was corroborated.

By treating the ODNI and Mueller’s conclusions as a blanket confirmation of Steele’s contact allegations, the passage injects editorial opinion that these official reports “proved” or “corroborated” all of the Dossier’s claims.

Cited sources must actually support the asserted statement. Here, the sources never state that “many Trump campaign officials had numerous secretive contacts” in line with Steele’s dossier specifics.

Readers deserve an accurate distinction between (1) broad findings about Russia’s interference and (2) the still-uncorroborated or disputed specifics in the Dossier.

Proposed Revision

A more accurate summary (Im not proposing this precise change, just something akin to it) would read:

“While the ODNI and the Mueller Report each concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to harm Hillary Clinton and boost Donald Trump, neither report corroborated the Steele dossier’s specific claims of ‘numerous secretive contacts’ between Trump campaign officials and Russian agents. The ODNI’s focus was on Russian hacking and propaganda efforts, and Mueller, though identifying multiple undisclosed or disputed interactions (e.g., Manafort–Kilimnik, Flynn–Kislyak, the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting), did not validate the dossier’s particular narratives (such as a purported Cohen trip to Prague). Thus, although official findings align with the dossier’s general assertion that Russia favored Trump, they do not confirm the Dossier’s more sweeping allegations of clandestine coordination.”

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This one really confuses me. Where do we imply "a blanket confirmation of Steele’s contact allegations"? Where do we imply the dossier says anything about "Flynn’s phone calls with Russia’s ambassador"? (That happened after the dossier was written! Our content about him relates to efforts to lift sanctions, and such Trump intentions are a topic in the dossier.) Where do we imply that the ODNI and Mueller say the dossier was correct about the "Cohen in Prague" allegation? (They don't. BTW, Cohen lied about that with a fake alibi.)

The dossier says there were many secretive contacts and an exchange of information between Trump people and Russians going back eight years, and the ODNI, Mueller, FBI, and CIA did find many secretive contacts between Trump people and Russian agents and officials. That is confirmation that Steele was on the right track long before the public knew anything. Was he getting information from his contacts in various intelligence communities? We may never know, as he likes to protect his sources.

We also have this short section in the Links between Trump associates and Russian officials#2015–2016 foreign surveillance of Russian targets article:

On February 10, 2017, CNN reported that "the dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals", and that some of those communications had been "intercepted during routine intelligence gathering" and corroborated by U.S. investigators. They "took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier". Due to the classified status of intelligence collection programs, it was not revealed which of the specific conversations mentioned in the dossier were intercepted.
U.S. officials said the corroboration gave "US intelligence and law enforcement 'greater confidence' in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents". (Bold added)

The findings of such contacts aligns with and confirms Steele's assertions that there were secret contacts between the campaign and Russians. Those contacts began in at least 2015 and were reported to the FBI/CIA by allied intelligence agencies.

If reference number 12 is a problem (primarily about Flynn), we can ditch it and use better sources). We can find plenty at the linked Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, the central issue is that the passage overstates what ODNI and Mueller actually “corroborated.” They concluded that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump, but they did not confirm the dossier’s more specific narrative of clandestine or conspiratorial contacts. Stating or implying that the ODNI or Mueller “corroborated” all these additional details (for instance, eight years of ongoing exchanges, or a coordinated conspiracy) goes beyond what either source actually says.

The CNN reference you cite indicates that certain communications mentioned in the dossier may have been intercepted—something intelligence officials found “gave US intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence” in select aspects. But that does not translate into official, across-the-board confirmation of every secret meeting or the broader storyline of deep coordination. Neither the ODNI nor Mueller concluded that all of the dossier’s allegations about numerous hidden contacts were proven true; key claims (such as Michael Cohen’s alleged trip to Prague) remain unverified or contradicted by testimony, even if some more general points (like Russia’s preference for Trump) proved accurate.

To be factually correct and consistent with source materials, the article should distinguish clearly between confirmed elements—like Russia’s pro-Trump interference efforts—and the unverified or disputed dossier allegations about elaborate, ongoing collusion. The ODNI and Mueller findings affirm that Russia tried to help Trump and that there were some undisclosed interactions (Manafort–Kilimnik, Flynn–Kislyak, etc.). They do not confirm Steele’s allegations of far-reaching secret coordination or validate statements about an extended multi-year conspiracy.

In short, the erroneous part is tying the ODNI and Mueller conclusions too tightly to Steele’s separate claims that go beyond “Russia favored Trump.” While some intercepted communications loosely align with portions of the dossier, neither report endorses or legally verifies the dossier’s broader claims about extensive secret dealings. Clarifying that the intelligence and Mueller findings align only with Steele’s more general points—and not the unproven specifics—will bring the article in line with what the sources actually say. Let me know if you are still confused, thanks. BostonUniver (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is relevant here:

Parts of the dossier have proved prescient. Its main assertion — that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected — was hardly an established fact when it was first laid out by Mr. Steele in June 2016. But it has since been backed up by the United States’ own intelligence agencies — and Mr. Mueller’s investigation. The dossier’s talk of Russian efforts to cultivate some people in Mr. Trump’s orbit was similarly unknown when first detailed in one of Mr. Steele’s reports, but it has proved broadly accurate as well.
Other parts of the dossier remain unsubstantiated, or nearly impossible to verify, such as its most salacious charge: that the Russians have a video of Mr. Trump cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel in 2013. At least one accusation — that Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, met in 2016 with Russian officials in Prague — now looks false after Mr. Cohen, who has turned sharply against Mr. Trump, denied last month during congressional testimony ever visiting Prague.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Above you write:

"The CNN reference you cite indicates that certain communications mentioned in the dossier may have been intercepted—something intelligence officials found “gave US intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence” in select aspects. But that does not translate into official, across-the-board confirmation of every secret meeting or the broader storyline of deep coordination. Neither the ODNI nor Mueller concluded that all of the dossier’s allegations about numerous hidden contacts were proven true;" (bold added)

The bolded parts are unhelpful straw men. The article never implies such things. Saying such things does not help us move forward. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, once again you’re conflating Russia’s broad effort to help Trump—documented by ODNI and Mueller—with Steele’s far more dramatic claims of extensive clandestine coordination. Neither the ODNI nor Mueller “confirmed” the dossier’s wildest conspiratorial charges (e.g., Cohen’s alleged Prague trip), and CNN’s note about intercepted communications giving investigators “greater confidence” hardly equates to validating Steele’s entire storyline. Yet you keep implying these official reports endorse every one of Steele’s unproven episodes. That’s the exact straw man tactic you falsely accuse others of using. If we’re actually aiming for accuracy, we should distinguish between general interference (indeed established) and the dossier’s deeper conspiracy tales (still unsubstantiated). You can’t wave a few partial overlaps in the air and insist they prove all the dossier’s claims—doing so just amplifies precisely the sort of misinterpretation and overreach you claim to guard against. BostonUniver (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"Yet you keep implying these official reports endorse every one of Steele’s unproven episodes." That is your interpretation, and I don't understand how you can make that jump. Immediately above your comment, I point out that this is a straw man. I do not imply "these official reports endorse every one of Steele’s unproven episodes." I write nothing that "equates to validating Steele’s entire storyline." We are clear that there are many aspects of his "storyline" that are unconfirmed and may never be confirmed. That doesn't make them untrue, just unconfirmed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's get back to the topic - this is the problem sentence addressed in this thread: "Several key dossier allegations made in June 2016 about the Russian government's efforts to get Trump elected, were later described as 'prescient'[7] because they were corroborated six months later in the January 2017 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[8][9] and the Mueller Report, namely that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton;[8][10] that he personally ordered an 'influence campaign' to harm Clinton's campaign and to 'undermine public faith in the US democratic process'; that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties;[8] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents.[11][12]."

This sentence splices together separate ideas—Russia’s documented election interference and Steele’s more sweeping claims—under the guise that the ODNI and Mueller Reports “corroborated” the dossier. In reality, neither the ODNI nor Mueller specifically credits Steele or verifies his contact allegations; both merely conclude that Russia tried to boost Trump and hack Democrats. Footnotes [11] and [12] discuss undisclosed interactions like Flynn–Kislyak and Manafort–Kilimnik but never reference Steele or characterize these meetings as evidence confirming his work. The effect is a kind of sleight of hand: official sources that never mention Steele are presented as proof of his reporting, and extraneous footnotes about Russian meddling are lumped in as if they confirm every aspect of the dossier’s narrative. The sentence itself is unwieldy, with multiple footnotes strung together, making it near-impossible for readers to follow which points come from which source—and thereby blurring the necessary distinction between what ODNI and Mueller established versus what Steele alleged.

The sentence hinges on calling Steele “prescient” based on a New York Times article that specifically credits only one broad aspect of the dossier—Russia’s preference for Trump—as borne out by later findings:

"Parts of the dossier have proved prescient. Its main assertion — that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected — was hardly an established fact when it was first laid out by Mr. Steele in June 2016. But it has since been backed up by the United States’ own intelligence agencies — and Mr. Mueller’s investigation. The dossier’s talk of Russian efforts to cultivate some people in Mr. Trump’s orbit was similarly unknown when first detailed in one of Mr. Steele’s reports, but it has proved broadly accurate as well."

Yet this edit from 2023 (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Diff/1190990702) then extends that “prescience” to suggest the ODNI and Mueller reports substantively corroborated Steele’s more expansive allegations about clandestine contacts.

My suggestion is that this huge sentence be re-written to be factually precise with relevant footnotes used. BostonUniver (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that diff. I think I see what you mean and will try to fix it. "Prescient" doesn't apply to all that follows. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that "prescient" (even though true for all those allegations) unfortunately became associated with everything mentioned later, so that must be fixed. It's maybe best to just leave it in the references and notes, not in the text. Here is the original (current) and a slightly shorter revised version:

ORIGINAL

Several key dossier allegations made in June 2016 about the Russian government's efforts to get Trump elected, were later described as "prescient" because they were corroborated six months later in the January 2017 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Mueller Report, namely that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton; that he personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"; that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties; and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents.

REVISED

U.S. intelligence agencies, the January 2017 ODNI report, and the Mueller report have corroborated the following June 2016 dossier allegations written by Steele: "that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected"; that Russia sought "to cultivate people in Trump's orbit" and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents; that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton; that Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"; and that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties.

Is that revised version okay? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's better, thanks. BostonUniver (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Now installed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Factual Inaccuracy 4: Misrepresenting Steele’s Ongoing FBI paid-CHS Status During Dossier Creation

The statement, "Prior to his work on the dossier, Steele had been a paid confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI[50] for information unrelated to the Russia investigation,[51]" is slightly factually inaccurate and misrepresents the timeline and nature of Steele's relationship with the FBI.

FBI records confirm that Steele remained a paid CHS for the FBI while assembling the dossier. Although the payments he received during this period were not directly linked to the dossier, they were for concurrent work on unrelated matters. The critical detail is that Steele was actively engaged with the FBI in a paid capacity during the dossier's compilation, undermining the claim that his status as a CHS ended prior to this work.

For instance, the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report explicitly states:

"FBI records show that Steele's last payment occurred on August 12, 2016, and was for information furnished to the FBI's Cyber and Counterintelligence Divisions (CD) that was unrelated to the 2016 U.S. elections."

(Page 173, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, December 2019, Revised). This evidence establishes that Steele's paid status overlapped with his dossier-related activities, even if the payments themselves were for separate matters. By asserting that Steele's role as a CHS ended "prior" to the dossier, the statement ignores critical nuance and distorts the timeline of events.

This misrepresentation creates a misleading impression of Steele’s independence during the dossier's creation, which is particularly significant given the dossier’s role in subsequent FBI investigations. A more accurate portrayal of Steele's status underscores the FBI’s ongoing reliance on him during this critical period, which is pertinent to discussions about his credibility.

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have RS that say he was still a paid CHS at the time he started working on the dossier for Fusion GPS? His last payment came after his CHS status had ended. I'm not sure we even know when his other work stopped. Even if there was an overlap, what's the problem? He was never paid by the FBI for his dossier work or for the information he provided them during that time. He never felt like a CHS during that time, and allowed his job with Fusion GPS to take priority, and that created a conflict between him and the FBI. They were very unhappy. They terminated him after he spoke to the press. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, pages 173 and 182 of the DOJ Inspector General’s report both reinforce that Steele remained a paid CHS while he was already compiling the dossier. Page 173 clarifies that the FBI “never paid Steele for information related to the 2016 U.S. elections” but does confirm that his last payment, for unrelated investigative work, occurred on August 12, 2016. Page 182 then shows that Steele was not formally closed as a CHS until November 2016, long after he had begun writing the dossier in June. Even if none of his FBI compensation funded that political research, the fact that his status and payments overlapped with the dossier’s early development stands. Acknowledging this timeline in the article—namely, that he was still on the FBI’s payroll for other counterintelligence matters through mid-August and was not “closed” until November—does not imply any wrongdoing but does clarify the chronology and avoids suggesting he severed ties with the Bureau before he started compiling his first dossier memos. BostonUniver (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I see the inaccurate passage still stands: "Prior to his work on the dossier, Steele had been a paid confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI for information unrelated to the Russia investigation."

It should be corrected to something like "Prior to and during some of his work on the dossier, Steele was a paid confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI for information unrelated to the Russia investigation." BostonUniver (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy 5: Correcting Misrepresentations of Steele Dossier Claims Against Gubarev

The following paragraph in the article contains a factual inaccuracy:

"Gubarev has denied all accusations made in the dossier.[257][258] The accusations are twofold, as they mention Gubarev and his companies. While it has been proven that his companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes,[7][401][402] Andrew Weisburd has said that 'Neither BuzzFeed nor Steele have accused Gubarev of being a willing participant in wrongdoing.'[258]"

This statement is misleading and violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) policies. The claim that "it has been proven that [Gubarev’s] companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes" overstates the evidence presented in the cited sources and fails to accurately reflect the nuanced and contested allegations made in the Steele dossier.

The Steele Dossier’s Allegations

The Steele dossier made the following claims about Aleksej Gubarev and his companies:

“[redacted] reported that over the period March-September 2016  
a company called XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using  
botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data  
and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party  
leadership. Entities linked to one Alexei GUBAROV were  
involved and he and another hacking expert, both recruited under  
duress by the FSB, Seva KAPSUGOVICH, were significant  
players in this operation. In Prague, COHEN agreed contingency  
plans for various scenarios to protect the operations, but in  
particular what was to be done in the event that Hillary  
CLINTON won the presidency. It was important in this event  
that all cash payments owed were made quickly and discreetly  
and that cyber and other operators were stood down / able to go  
effectively to ground to cover their traces.”

These claims can be broken into two distinct components:

1. Allegations Against XBT/Webzilla and Affiliates:

  - XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates allegedly engaged in activities such as:
    - Using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses.
    - Planting bugs and stealing data.
    - Conducting "altering operations" targeting the Democratic Party leadership.

2. Allegations Against Gubarev Personally:

  - Gubarev, along with another individual (Seva Kapsugovich), was allegedly recruited under duress by the FSB to play a "significant role" in these operations.

Misrepresentation of Evidence

The current claim in the Wikipedia article that "it has been proven that [Gubarev’s] companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes" misrepresents the evidence available, which is far from conclusive:

FTI Consulting Report:

  - The FTI report, commissioned by BuzzFeed as part of its defense in Gubarev’s defamation lawsuit, concluded that infrastructure owned by XBT/Webzilla was likely exploited by cybercriminals and Russian state actors. However, it explicitly stated that there was no evidence of direct involvement by Gubarev or his employees:
     "I have no evidence of them [Gubarev or his employees] actually sitting behind a keyboard.”
  - The report also noted that hosting companies like XBT/Webzilla are often unknowingly exploited by bad actors due to the nature of their services.

  - The FTI report acknowledged that XBT’s infrastructure was also used by non-Russian cyber actors, including groups tied to China, North Korea, and Spain. This undermines any claim that XBT was uniquely complicit in Russian cyber operations.

  - The FTI report has not been independently corroborated. Its findings were produced during litigation and remain contested, with cybersecurity experts like Eric Cole emphasizing the absence of "actual supporting evidence" linking XBT/Webzilla to specific cybercrimes.

  - The federal court dismissed Gubarev’s defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed, ruling that BuzzFeed’s publication of the dossier was protected as a fair report of matters of public interest. The court did not validate the dossier’s claims, and Judge Ungaro noted that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations against Gubarev.

Violations of Wikipedia Policies

1. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV):

  - The phrase "it has been proven" falsely implies that there is definitive evidence establishing Gubarev’s companies' involvement in cybercrimes. This violates the requirement to present information neutrally, especially when the evidence is contested.

2. Verifiability (WP:VERIFY):

  - The reliance on the litigation-commissioned FTI report, without acknowledging its limitations or contested nature, undermines the claim’s verifiability. No independent or government investigation has corroborated the dossier’s allegations against Gubarev or his companies.

3. Failure to Address Counterevidence:

  - The article omits critical context, such as the rebuttals provided by cybersecurity experts and the broader industry pattern of hosting providers being unknowingly exploited by malicious actors. This omission skews the narrative and violates Wikipedia’s commitment to balanced representation.

Proposed Revision

To correct these inaccuracies, the paragraph should be revised as follows:

"Aleksej Gubarev

Gubarev has denied all accusations made in the dossier.[257][258] The Steele dossier alleged that Gubarev’s companies, XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates, were used between March and September 2016 to conduct cyber operations against the Democratic Party leadership, including using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, and steal data. It also alleged that Gubarev was recruited under duress by the FSB to play a significant role in these operations. A report commissioned by BuzzFeed during litigation suggested that infrastructure owned by Gubarev’s companies may have been exploited by cybercriminals and Russian state actors.[7][401][402] However, the report found no evidence directly linking Gubarev or his employees to these activities, and cybersecurity experts have noted that web-hosting companies are often unknowingly exploited for such purposes. Andrew Weisburd stated that 'Neither BuzzFeed nor Steele have accused Gubarev of being a willing participant in wrongdoing.'[258]"

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have collected all we have written about Gubarev into one paragraph. What part of that is inaccurate? What is the change you want to make? Keep it simple as your points get lost in the walls of text. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, while I cannot speak for BostonUniver, my interpretation is that BostonUniver's main objection is as follows: "The current claim in the Wikipedia article that 'it has been proven that [Gubarev's] companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes' misrepresents the evidence available, which is far from conclusive". BostonUniver's proposed remedy for this overstated language is contained in the above paragraph.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, the current wording effectively defames a living person—Aleksej Gubarev—by overstating that his companies “have been proven” to facilitate cybercrimes. The FTI report, on which this is based, explicitly found no direct evidence of Gubarev’s knowing involvement. That makes the claim unsupported and, under Wikipedia’s guidance on material about living persons, it must be removed or revised immediately to prevent misrepresentation and potential defamation. BostonUniver (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's what we write:

The report by FTI Consulting said:

Mr. Gubarev's companies have provided gateways to the internet for cybercriminals and Russian state-sponsored actors to launch and control large scale malware campaigns over the past decade. Gubarev and other XBT executives do not appear to actively prevent cybercriminals from using their infrastructure.

What's wrong with that? It says clearly that his companies were used by criminals. It does not say he was personally involved or even knew about it. As far as I can tell, we are careful to separate the actions of Gubarev from those of his companies and not imply that he wittingly engaged in wrongdoing. I think you are "seeing" something here that no one else has seen for the many years this article has existed, and they don't see it for good reason. It's not there. A clear BLP violation would have been noticed by Gubarev and watching editors long ago, and we would have fixed the matter.

It is not our job to relitigate these court cases, but if we need to add a few words to clarify something, we might be able to do that if the source is about the case AND the dossier.

Would adding this help?:

"The FTI report, commissioned by BuzzFeed as part of its defense in Gubarev’s defamation lawsuit, concluded that infrastructure owned by XBT/Webzilla was likely exploited by cybercriminals and Russian state actors. However, it explicitly stated that there was no evidence of direct involvement by Gubarev or his employees:

     "I have no evidence of them [Gubarev or his employees] actually sitting behind a keyboard.”
  - The report also noted that hosting companies like XBT/Webzilla are often unknowingly exploited by bad actors due to the nature of their services.

Would changing the words "it has been proven that his companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes" to "an FTI report "concluded that infrastructure owned by XBT/Webzilla was likely exploited by cybercriminals and Russian state actors"" help?

Can you, in 2-3 lines or less, provide exact quotes about Gubarev from our article that violate BLP? I take BLP very seriously and don't want to violate it or defame Gubarev. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The passage is problematic from a BLP point of view: "it has been proven that his companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes"

FTI’s report is simply expert witness testimony submitted in the context of litigation and never adjudicated as factual or legally binding. No court or independent authority evaluated or confirmed the report’s findings, meaning it’s not tantamount to “proof.” Legally, a party’s expert report can bolster their argument in court, but unless a judge or jury formally adopts its conclusions, it remains unverified opinion—not an official determination that Gubarev’s companies “facilitated” anything knowingly or unlawfully. BostonUniver (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll assume that's true. Why don't we just attribute that to the FTI report by replacing "proven" with something from the FTI report or from the Rosenberg source? BTW, what is your source for this content: "The FTI report, commissioned by BuzzFeed as part of its..." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

"The report commissioned by BuzzFeed to investigate the dossier did not set out to prove any of those accusations. It was done by FTI Consulting, a Washington-based firm, and focused solely on the accusations against Mr. Gubarev." see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/politics/gubarev-steele-dossier-trump-russia.html I think fine to echo the NYT piece in saying "may have" or "appeared to have" rather than "proven". BostonUniver (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I changed "While it has been proven that [Gubarev's] companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes" to "While there is evidence that Gubarev's companies may have been used to facilitate cybercrimes," using more cautious language similar to that of our cited sources (e.g., The New York Times). Hopefully, this at least partially addresses BostonUniver's concern.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I like it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I would still like to get access to those sources from both of you. Please provide me with some URLs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Oops! I see you have just done that. Thanks. I think we could use that NYT source to make that language much stronger than "may have". The FTI investigation found strong evidence of Russian use of those servers to attack the DNC, etc. The evidence literally "proves" that those crimes occurred using Gubarev's servers. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, the March 14, 2019 New York Times piece (“Tech Firm in Steele Dossier May Have Been Used by Russian Spies”) makes clear FTI’s findings were never legally validated and do not “prove” that Gubarev or his staff knowingly facilitated cybercrimes. The article states FTI found malicious actors used his servers but underscores that the investigators had “no evidence of them actually sitting behind a keyboard.” Labeling that as “proof” misconstrues the Times’s careful wording and overstates FTI’s unadjudicated conclusions, violating the integrity of both the article and Wikipedia’s BLP standards. BostonUniver (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. FTI found clear evidence, even tracing IP numbers (that used Gubarev's servers) to the Russian hackers who hacked the DNC, that Gubarev's servers were used by bad actors. FTI did not find evidence that Gubarev was personally involved, and neither I nor our article intimates any such thing, so why are you complaining? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

well the current version is obviously better than the original claim.

Original: "it has been proven that his companies were used to facilitate cybercrimes"

Current: "The validity of the accusation that Aleksej Gubarev's "XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic Party leadership" has been affirmed by an unsealed report by FTI Consulting in the defamation suit(s) Gubarev had filed against others."

I do think there needs to be a slight amendment to reflect the fact the FTI report was commissioned by Buzzfeed. Parties produce experts reports are evidence all the time, ts something presented as part of a case in court. Happy to resolve if we're able to add that important piece of context. BostonUniver (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I have added that BuzzFeed commissioned that report. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! BostonUniver (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Factual Inaccuracy 6: “Alleged August 2017 Source Disclosure Contradicted by OIG Findings on Steele’s Dossier”

The following paragraph in the article contains a factual inaccuracy:

"By August 22, 2017, Steele had provided [the FBI] with the names of the sources for the allegations in the dossier."

This claim relies on an ABC News article dated August 22, 2017, which cites anonymous "people briefed on the developments" to assert that Steele provided the FBI with source names. However, this source is vague, lacks corroboration, and fails to specify whether Steele’s descriptions were accurate or verified. In contrast, the December 2019 Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report explicitly documents significant discrepancies between Steele's representations and the sub-sources’ own accounts. For example, Steele claimed that a sub-source had direct access to a senior Russian official, but the sub-source (Igor Danchenko) denied ever meeting or speaking with that official (OIG Report, p. 192).

The ABC News article’s reliance on anonymous sources, coupled with the absence of subsequent corroboration, renders it inadequate to substantiate the claim. Moreover, the authoritative findings in the OIG report directly contradict the assertion that Steele provided accurate source names by August 22, 2017. The Wikipedia article must reflect these documented contradictions to adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:VERIFY) standards.

For example, the article should state:

"While some reports suggested Steele provided source names to the FBI by August 22, 2017, the December 2019 Office of the Inspector General report documented significant discrepancies between Steele's descriptions and the sub-sources’ statements, raising doubts about the reliability of his source identification."

This revision ensures the article accurately reflects the authoritative evidence, avoiding reliance on weak or unverifiable sources.

See the official records which suggest Mr. Steele did not supply accurate names or descriptions for the sources of the dossier:

"In Steele's September 2017 interview with the FBI, Steele also made statements that conflicted with explanations from two of his sub-sources about their access to Russian officials. For example, Steele explained that the Primary Sub-source had direct access to a particular former senior Russian government official and that they had been "speaking for a while." The Primary Sub-source told the FBI, however, that he/she had never met or spoken with the official. Steele also stated that one sub-source was [statement redacted in report] one of a few persons in a "circle" close to a particular senior official. The FBI obtained information from the sub-source that contradicted Steele's interpretation." Page 192, Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, December 2019 (Revised) (Source: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf)

BostonUniver (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. Providing the names has nothing to do with the accuracy of their claims. Also, unless there are very strong reasons (backed by other RS) to do so, we do not second-guess RS, even if their sources are anonymous and/or uncorroborated. That would be OR (original research). We just report what they say, so that ABC News source is okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, the problem is that the ABC News report alleges Steele “named” his sources by August 22, 2017, yet the OIG later found “significant discrepancies” in Steele’s claims about those same sources. Page 192 of the December 2019 OIG report shows Steele described one sub-source as having direct access to a senior Russian official—an assertion the sub-source flatly denied. It’s not “apples to oranges” to note that if Steele’s identified sub-sources themselves contradicted his descriptions, it casts doubt on whether he truly provided “accurate” source names or details by that August date. Relying solely on an anonymously sourced ABC article, without reconciling the OIG’s hard-documented findings, violates Wikipedia’s Verifiability principle by ignoring higher-quality evidence. We’re not “second-guessing” the ABC piece—we’re simply incorporating contradictory information from an authoritative government investigation that directly undermines the credibility of what ABC’s unnamed “people briefed” claimed. BostonUniver (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The FBI clearly describes how Steele's subsources were backtracking and trying to minimize what they had said, IOW their denials should not be taken at face value or even be believed. Danchenko was scared shitless that he'd be exported back to Russia, where he would have been killed. (Not only for his role in the dossier, but for his scholarly exposure of Putin's plagiarism.) He never imagined that his role would become public. What he said when relaxed and speaking truthfully was the most accurate version of what he was told by his subsources. The FBI did not blindly accept his minimizations, but did note them. This article does mention this issue.

As far as the accuracy of his descriptions of his sources, when one reads several of the primary sources, one realizes he really resisted being totally upfront with the information. He sometimes was "less than precise". Do you think we should add more to clarify that issue, or is it worth doing anything about it? How much detail should we add? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You want to add this: "While some reports suggested Steele provided source names to the FBI by August 22, 2017, the December 2019 Office of the Inspector General report documented significant discrepancies between Steele's descriptions and the sub-sources’ statements, raising doubts about the reliability of his source identification." When we add it to the existing content, could we shorten it? Please try a shorter version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"veracity" claim in the lede

I see that the discussion around the "veracity" claim in the lede has been archived. I am revisiting this argument having studied the footnotes for the passages in detail. Many of the references cited for claims that “some allegations [in the Steele Dossier] have been publicly confirmed,” “others are plausible but not specifically confirmed,” and “some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven” either predate or conflict with the findings in the Mueller Report, the DOJ Inspector General’s report, and the Senate Intelligence Committee volumes.

While early press coverage and the ODNI’s 2017 statement confirmed broad Russian interference, they did not validate Steele’s specific allegations, such as Cohen’s alleged Prague trip or conspiratorial arrangements with Russian officials. In fact, both Mueller and Horowitz explicitly noted the lack of corroboration for major claims in the dossier, and the Senate investigation likewise found no support for key assertions. Citing outdated or vague media pieces about possible confirmations without acknowledging these later, more authoritative investigations risks overstating the evidence. Under Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality standards, these statements should be revised or contextualized to reflect that official inquiries ultimately did not substantiate the dossier’s core claims.

(i)

Focusing on the statement: "the veracity status of specific allegations [in the Steele Dossier] is highly variable. Some have been publicly confirmed,[b]" '

Footnote [b] reads" "Some allegations confirmed.[8][9][10][78][221][222]"

Then those individual footnotes are as follows:

[8] ODNI (January 6, 2017). Background to 'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution (PDF) (Report). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Retrieved April 1, 2018.

[9] Sciutto, Jim; Perez, Evan (February 10, 2017). "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier". CNN. Retrieved February 10, 2017. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals.... the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier.

[10] Levine, Mike (January 12, 2018). "FBI vets: What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe". ABC News. Retrieved February 26, 2018. some of the dossier's broad implications — particularly that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an operation to boost Trump and sow discord within the U.S. and abroad — now ring true and were embedded in the memo Steele shared with the FBI before the agency decided to open an investigation.

[78] Scheuermann, Christoph; Schmitt, Jörg (February 7, 2019). "Much Has Been Confirmed in Dossier at Heart of Donald Trump Scandal". Der Spiegel. Retrieved November 22, 2019.

[221] Cullison, Alan; Volz, Dustin (April 19, 2019). "Mueller Report Dismisses Many Steele Dossier Claims". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 7, 2019.

[222] Perez, Evan; Prokupecz, Shimon; Brown, Pamela (October 25, 2017). "Mueller's team met with Russia dossier author". CNN. Retrieved November 5, 2017.

At first glance, even these article titles clash—some claim “much has been confirmed,” while others note that the Mueller Report “dismisses” many key points. This is an immediate indication that the underlying evidence is mixed or in tension, so any Wikipedia statement that “some allegations have been publicly confirmed” needs to rest on specific, reliably documented confirmations (rather than general or outdated references).

The statement in the Wikipedia article—“Some [allegations in the Steele Dossier] have been publicly confirmed”—is evaluated here for accuracy, sourcing, and consistency with authoritative findings, including those in the ODNI assessment, the Mueller Report, and the Senate Intelligence Committee reports. This analysis also incorporates commentary from Erik Wemple’s January 2020 Washington Post critique, alongside observations from the Justice Department Inspector General (Horowitz) and Special Counsel Mueller.

The claim centers on whether specific dossier allegations involving the Trump campaign or alleged collusion have been “publicly confirmed.” Footnote [b] supporting this statement cites six sources, including reports from the ODNI, media articles from CNN and ABC News, and coverage by outlets like Der Spiegel and the Wall Street Journal. To determine the validity of this claim, it is necessary to assess whether these sources substantiate the confirmation of specific, substantive allegations tied to Steele’s reporting.

The ODNI’s January 2017 report confirmed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to harm Hillary Clinton and aid Donald Trump. However, the report did not validate specific allegations in the Steele Dossier, such as claims of Trump campaign collusion, Michael Cohen’s alleged trip to Prague, or compromising material held by Russia. Its findings pertain broadly to Russian interference but not to the dossier’s unique claims.

Similarly, the Mueller Report, released in 2019, examined Steele’s allegations in depth. Two notable claims—the supposed Prague meeting involving Michael Cohen and alleged conspiracies by Carter Page—were explicitly addressed. Mueller’s investigation concluded that Cohen did not travel to Prague and found no evidence of Page’s alleged conspiracies with Russian officials. While Mueller confirmed Russian hacking and disinformation campaigns, these conclusions were based on other intelligence sources and did not rely on Steele’s reporting.

The Senate Intelligence Committee reports from 2019 and 2020 reinforced the findings of broad Russian interference but did not corroborate the dossier’s specific claims about collusion, blackmail, or coordination between Trump associates and Russia. Like Mueller, these reports did not validate Steele’s core allegations.

The Justice Department Inspector General (Horowitz) issued a 2019 report that scrutinized the Steele Dossier’s role in the FBI’s FISA applications. The IG found that while some minor details—such as names, titles, and dates—were consistent with known facts, the FBI was unable to corroborate any of the dossier’s substantive allegations about Trump associates, including Carter Page. In some cases, the IG noted that allegations were either inaccurate or contradicted by FBI findings. Horowitz explicitly stated that no substantive allegations from Steele’s reporting were verified.

One of the sources cited in footnote [b], a February 2017 CNN article, claims that “some aspects” of the dossier were corroborated. However, as Erik Wemple noted in his 2020 critique, the article does not specify which aspects were confirmed or their significance. CNN anchors repeatedly suggested that “parts” of the dossier were verified, but neither the Mueller Report nor Horowitz’s findings supported this implication. Wemple highlighted that vague corroboration of peripheral details—such as timing or conversations among foreign nationals—was insufficient to substantiate Steele’s major claims.

Other cited sources similarly fail to provide evidence of substantive confirmations. For instance, Der Spiegel vaguely asserts that “many suspicions” in the dossier were confirmed but offers no reference to official investigative findings. The Wall Street Journal, in contrast, emphasizes that the Mueller Report “all but dismissed many key claims” in the dossier, directly undermining the idea that substantive allegations were confirmed.

Under Wikipedia’s standards of verifiability and neutrality, the statement “Some have been publicly confirmed” must be supported by reliable sources clearly identifying which allegations were confirmed and how. The sources cited in footnote [b] primarily address broad Russian interference, a fact established independently of Steele’s reporting. The claim becomes misleading without clarifying that the supposed “confirmed” aspects involve only minor or publicly known details, rather than the dossier’s substantive or controversial allegations.

In conclusion, the phrase “Some have been publicly confirmed” overstates the evidence. Neither the ODNI, Mueller, nor Senate reports confirm Steele’s specific allegations about Trump-campaign collusion or blackmail. Horowitz explicitly found no corroboration of substantive claims. Media sources cited in footnote [b] do not substantiate meaningful confirmation of the dossier’s central allegations. Accordingly, this statement does not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability or neutrality standards without additional specificity and reliable attribution. It would be more accurate to state that while some minor details in the Steele Dossier align with known facts, its substantive allegations remain unverified or contradicted by authoritative findings.

(ii)

Focusing on the argument "others are plausible but not specifically confirmed,[25][26]

The footnotes here are

[25] Lee, Michelle Ye Hee (December 26, 2017). "Trump slams FBI, Obamacare in post-Christmas tweets". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 11, 2018.

[26] Farhi, Paul (November 12, 2021). "The Washington Post corrects, removes parts of two stories regarding the Steele dossier". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 13, 2021. The Washington Post on Friday took the unusual step of correcting and removing large portions of two articles. ... 'Steele dossier,' a collection of largely unverified reports ... [that] had identified businessman Sergei Millian as "Source D," the unnamed figure who passed on the most salacious allegation in the dossier to its principal author ... Steele.

The article by Michelle Ye Hee Lee focuses on Donald Trump’s December 2017 criticisms via Twitter, targeting the FBI, Obamacare, and the Steele Dossier, referring to it as a "pile of garbage." The article notes that some of the dossier’s content has been corroborated, while other parts—particularly the more salacious claims—remain unverified. However, it does not specify which information was corroborated or which officials made these statements, leaving the claims general: some content is “corroborated,” and other parts “remain unverified.”

The phrasing “remain unverified” does not inherently imply plausibility. It simply indicates that certain claims are not confirmed. The article avoids suggesting whether the unverified claims are credible or likely to be true, remaining neutral.

Paul Farhi’s November 12, 2021, article in The Washington Post discusses corrections to earlier pieces that mistakenly identified a key source for the Steele Dossier’s most salacious allegations. The corrections cast doubt on the dossier’s reliability, especially following Igor Danchenko’s indictment. The article highlights how the dossier relied on raw, unverified information and notes the precariousness of certain allegations. The corrections and retractions do not imply that the claims are plausible; instead, they reflect increased skepticism, especially about previously misattributed claims.

When compared to findings from the ODNI, Mueller’s investigation, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, a pattern emerges: these bodies did not endorse the Steele Dossier’s unverified claims as plausible. The ODNI’s January 2017 report confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election but did not address the plausibility of the dossier’s collusion or blackmail claims. Mueller’s 2019 report contradicted key allegations, such as Michael Cohen’s supposed trip to Prague and Carter Page’s alleged secret Rosneft deals. Similarly, the Senate Intelligence Committee reports from 2019 and 2020 detailed Russian interference but did not validate the dossier’s major allegations. In some cases, such as Cohen’s Prague trip, the reports outright refuted these claims.

The phrase “plausible but not specifically confirmed” does not align with these findings. Footnotes [25] and [26] merely highlight that certain claims remain unverified and, in some cases, increasingly doubtful. Without explicit secondary sources deeming these claims plausible, labeling them as such risks overstating the evidence. Under Wikipedia’s policies, such as verifiability and neutral point of view, the phrase should likely be revised to reflect that the claims are inconclusive or unverified, avoiding an implication of plausibility without clear support.

the Steele Dossier’s unverified allegations remain unsupported by official investigations or secondary sources cited in footnotes [25] and [26]. To maintain Wikipedia’s standards, it is more accurate to describe these claims as unverified rather than plausible, ensuring the text does not overstate the available evidence.

(iii)

Focusing on the argument "some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven.[27][28][29]"

Let's look at the key passages in the cited sources:

27 - "Manafort accuses Mueller deputy of leaking to press. Transcript: 05/22/2018. The Rachel Maddow Show". MSNBC. May 22, 2018. Retrieved September 26, 2018.

The relevant passage:

"MADDOW: Is there anything in the dossier that has been disproven?

CLAPPER: No. Some of it hasnt been proven. And some of it hasnt been - - no. I guess the short answer to the question. The salacious stuff, absolutely no corroboration of that, to my knowledge."

28 - Hutzler, Alexandra (August 16, 2018). "Fox News Host Contradicts Sean Hannity, Trump Over Dossier Claims". Newsweek. Retrieved August 18, 2018.

The relevant passage:

"Smith gave some context as to what exactly the Steele dossier is on his segment Wednesday, explaining that the document includes 17 memos that allege misconduct by members of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Russian government. "Some of the assertions in the dossier have been confirmed," Smith said. "Other parts are unconfirmed."

"None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been disproven," the host added, which immediately contradicted the many statements made by Hannity that the document is fake."

Given the raft of post-2018 findings—from the ODNI’s January 2017 assessment to the 2019 Mueller Report, the December 2019 Inspector General Horowitz report, and the Senate Intelligence Committee volumes published through August 2020—there is now ample material contradicting the outdated notion that “none of [the dossier] has been disproven.” The claim hinges on 2018-era statements by James Clapper, Shepard Smith, and others (MSNBC transcript, The Rachel Maddow Show, 22 May 2018; Newsweek, 16 August 2018; Lawfare, 14 December 2018), but those predate the far more in-depth probes.

The Mueller Report explicitly concluded: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government” (Mueller Report, Vol. I, p. 2). Later in the same volume, it reiterated that “the evidence was not sufficient to charge any broader conspiracy” (Mueller Report, Vol. I, p. 9). The DOJ Inspector General similarly noted that the FBI’s FISA renewals relying on the Steele Dossier contained “significant inaccuracies and omissions” (Horowitz Report, p. 413) and that the FBI “was unable to corroborate most of the substantive allegations” (Horowitz Report, p. 187). In the Senate Intelligence Committee’s final volume, the committee stated that it “found no evidence” of certain key claims in the dossier and that while “Trump and his associates sought to capitalize on Russian offers of assistance,” the more sweeping allegations remained “unsubstantiated by the materials available” (Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Vol. 5, p. 940).

These more recent official inquiries undermine the outdated citations from 2018 that purportedly show no allegations were disproven. Key details have since been scrutinized by official bodies with subpoena power, classified access, and broad investigatory mandates, resulting in contrary conclusions—particularly on the so-called “well-developed conspiracy” claim, which the Senate specifically found “lacked direct evidence” (Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Vol. 5, p. 944).

Since Wikipedia policy requires relying on the best available, most up-to-date reliable sources, it would be misleading to continue stating “none of it has been disproven” without referencing these later authoritative findings. The new material does not necessarily “prove” every detail false, but it materially contradicts many core assertions of cooperation alleged in the dossier and makes the blanket claim that allegations remain “not strictly disproven” untenable in light of the official record. The statement, as currently sourced to 2018 materials alone, falls short of reflecting what major investigations ultimately determined. If these older sources remain in the article, they should at least be balanced with explicit references to the 2019–2020 government reports and direct quotations—from Mueller, Horowitz, and the Senate—showing that much of the dossier was unsubstantiated, discredited, or otherwise unsupported by the evidence these investigations uncovered.

PS: Regarding the Fox News–based footnote, the core issue is that Fox News has been repeatedly flagged at Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources Noticeboard as problematic, particularly for commentary shows and opinion segments. In this case, the citation is effectively doubling down on a host’s offhand remark (“None of the dossier, to Fox News’s knowledge, has been disproven,” as quoted by Newsweek on 16 August 2018), itself already outdated by the subsequent release of the Mueller, Horowitz, and Senate Intelligence Committee findings. Because Wikipedia guidelines caution against using organizations with a track record of reliability disputes—especially opinion programs—as sources for contentious or controversial claims, citing a single 2018 statement from a Fox News host who was, at the time, not even speaking on behalf of the network underscores two issues: it is not a robust, vetted piece of investigative reporting, and it predates official government documents that reached contrary conclusions. BostonUniver (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I am gonna say no to all of the above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Anachronistic sources which have been superseded are ok to use and similarly we can cite Fox News hosts like Hannity et al provided they have been quoted in a RS? Please can you explain the reasoning BostonUniver (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Would it maybe be worthwhile to say which bits of the dossier were proven? So as not to confuse the reader into thinking it was collusion or the salacious stuff? Seems like if there were more objective sources to back up a clear claim for this it wouldn’t be necessary to cite a Fox News host statement from 2018 or a Rachel Maddow transcript. BostonUniver (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we can quote people reported in RS. as to superseded. I disagree with that assertion, nor do we say Trump colluded. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

NO I do not think that, as we do not in fact know if any of it it true or false, they are (I am sure we say this) unproven allegations. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You seem to forget that this is about the lead, where detail is usually left out. We use the body to be more specific. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, the short of it is that the line claiming “some allegations have been publicly confirmed” relies on outdated or vague press pieces that were later superseded by official findings—namely Mueller’s report, the Senate Intelligence Committee volumes, and Horowitz’s OIG investigation. Those authorities explicitly concluded that the dossier’s core claims (Cohen in Prague, Carter Page’s conspiracies, etc.) remained unverified or contradicted by the evidence. Continuing to quote 2017–2018 media reports as proof of “confirmed” allegations, without properly acknowledging these later, more definitive conclusions, misleads readers and violates WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. If the lead insists on calling them “confirmed,” it must be balanced with the official record showing that major portions of Steele’s work were neither verified nor supported by subsequent investigations. BostonUniver (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This article has never presented those allegations as proven true. You write: "The lead insists on calling them 'confirmed,'" No, it doesn't and never has. They are unconfirmed allegations, and no later findings have changed that fact. Even the facts that a cellphone of his pinged in the Prague area, and Cohen lied about never having visited Prague (he did many years before these allegations), and that he lied again with a false alibi, do not prove the allegation is true. Trump also lied repeatedly with a false alibi regarding the alleged peetape. Those lies just make one wonder why they would lie more than once if the allegations are totally false. Such lies are considered consciousness of guilt that is admissible evidence of guilt in court proceedings. (Such evidence must be bolstered with more evidence. They cannot stand alone.)

The line “some allegations have been publicly confirmed” remains a fact. You seem to not want to admit that a single allegation has been proven true. In fact, the central allegations regarding the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia have been proven true, while some others, like some of the Cohen and Carter ones (Cohen in Prague, Carter Page’s conspiracies, etc.), remain unconfirmed.

As I have written on this page, the best overall summary I know of is from the subject matter experts at Lawfare. After two years and a thorough examination of all the allegations, they declared: "The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven." That remains true to this day. That is a very RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)