Talk:Steele dossier

This article needs to be rewritten to include information from the IG

The information in this wiki is outdated and is flawed down to its central premise. I noted numerous inaccuracies but will only highlight one primary one. The intro to this article states: "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated,[18][19] in particular its main allegations: that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton,[20][13] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians."

This is false because that is not the main allegation of the Steele Dossier, which was uncorroborated and disproven. The main allegation was that Page was working for Putin and Russia. Page was allegedly involved in both corruption as well as coordinating the email release with the Trump campaign, as well as being involved in an agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign to help the campaign in exchange for easing sanctions on Russia. None of these allegations are true, and thus I suggest an entire rewrite of the dossier that quotes heavily from the IG report directly rather than media sources and pundits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.193.132 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Parts of the dossier have been corroborated. Please provide reliable sources to support any edits you wish to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I did so below. It should also be added that the CIA intel chief said the CIA viewed the dossier as "internet rumors" in the IG report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.193.132 (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I have searched the whole report and do not find those words. Please provide the source (URL), exact wording, and context where you found that wording. I suspect that is out of context and exaggerated. One comment might say that, but lots of other comments say the CIA and FBI had other opinions which were much more nuanced. That's why they took the allegations seriously and investigated them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It is listed multiple times, I am surprised you couldn't find it. Page 384 footnote 507: "...However, according to the Intel Section Chief and Supervisory Intel Analyst, as the interagency editing process for the ICA progressed, the CIA expressed concern about using the Steele election reporting in the body of the ICA, and recommended that it be moved to an appendix. In a December 28, 2016 email to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Principal Deputy Director, McCabe objected to this recommendation, stating, "We oppose CIA's current plan to include [the election reporting] as an appendix." However, the FBI Intel Section Chief told us that the CIA viewed the Steele reporting as "internet rumor." The FBI's view did not prevail, and the final ICA report included a short summary of the Steele election reporting in an appendix." I agree with the other editors who suggest a total rewrite in light of the IG report revelations into the dossier and its relation to the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.154.193.132 (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, now I found it. By using your terms (plural "internet rumors"), I couldn't find it. By using the right term (singular "internet rumor"), I could. It was the Rolling Stone article which gave me that cue.

A complete rewrite is out of the question. That's not how Wikipedia works. We revise inaccurate information, and where there is disagreement, as in these cases, we document the discrepancy, IOW we document the historical development, including the inaccuracies in previous reportings. It's embarrassing to the original sources which got it wrong. Tough luck for them.

The IG report mostly provides insights into sloppiness, failures to follow protocols, exaggerations, miscommunications, and how one of Steele's witnesses turns hostile and disputes the reports. That's to be expected. Now we wait and see how RS report it, and then we document what they say. We do NOT go directly to the IG report and find what we want and include it. That violates WP:OR. The same has been done with this article. There is much in the dossier that is not mentioned in this article because it didn't have due weight in RS. If RS don't mention it, we are not allowed to do it either. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The IG report listed seventeen serious violations of the FISA process that led to an audit and potential reform of the whole process. It found a lawyer fraudulently altered critical documents concerning Page's past work with US intelligence in order to get a warrant and is now being prosecuted. Steele's witness turning hostile and disputing the report? Care to cite me what page in the IG report that describes the emotional state or motivations of the Primary Sub source to dispute what Steele claimed the PSS told him? I must have missed that part. Sure you aren't "misusing a primary source?" Or are you basing your statement on your personal conjecture? I believe that's discouraged here. But more importantly, since you seem to be the most involved in editing and reverting edits to this page, are you going to add the characterization of the dossier as an "internet rumor? Here is the quote from the BBC which I believe is a reliable source: "The report noted the CIA itself viewed the Steele dossier as little more than "an internet rumour". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50720350 I feel this merits inclusion at the top section or at least in the veracity section. 173.154.128.33 (talk) 08:35, December 11, 2019‎ (UTC)

Opinions may vary as to which allegation is the main one or "central premise", but the allegations all center on concerns about the proven Russian interferene and Trump's proven co-operation with those efforts. That's the red thread, and it's been proven beyond all doubt...among reasonable people who don't believe Russian propaganda. Mueller even called it "Steele's central claim":

While a formal written or oral "conspiracy" was never proven by the Mueller investigation, some consider the actions of Manafort, Trump, who welcomed Russian help, and other Trump campaign members and associates as "co-operation" with the Russian's "'sweeping and systematic' operation in 2016 to help Trump win", described in the Mueller Report as "Steele's central claim".

BullRangifer (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You need to be careful about making false claims. You’ve done it before. The Mueller Report did not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or coordinated with Russia. Why do you keep saying that? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't say that. I have replied and explained terminology in a section on your talk page. I try to be precise in my terminology. I wrote "co-operation", not "conspiracy". The first is proven, the latter is not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than making such strong assertions, please make very specific suggestions for improvement, including exact wordings and exact RS you'll use. That is something we can use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Footnote 259 of the Horowitz Report expressly refutes the claim in Steele's memos that there was a connection between Alfa Bank and the campaign. This should be added. In the intro to the wiki it states: "That then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had "managed" a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership", and that he used Trump's foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others, "as intermediaries".[150][152] (Dossier, p. 7)" These are all false claims. Next: "That Page had "conceived and promoted" the timing of the release of hacked emails by WikiLeaks[153][139] for the purpose of swinging supporters of Bernie Sanders "away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP".[153][151] (Dossier, pp. 7, 17) This is a false claim. "That "the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team."[4][160] (Dossier, p. 8) This is a false claim (referring to the dnc leak) "That Page had secretly met Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin in Moscow on "either 7 or 8 July",[135] together with a "senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN."[163][138][133][164][165] (Dossier, pp. 9, 30–32) That Sechin "offered PAGE/TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft" (worth about $11 billion) in exchange for Trump lifting the sanctions against Russia after his election.[163][138][133][164][165] (Dossier, pp. 9, 30–32)" These are all false claims also listed in the allegations section.

Also, the wiki needs to be updated to include mention that Steele's primary sub-source denies telling Steele much of what he told the FBI that his source told him.

173.154.193.132 (talk) 05:33, December 11, 2019‎ (UTC)

We only deal with the allegations, true or false, which are dealt with in secondary sources. We do do not deal with, or even mention, other allegations. That an allegation might be false is no reason not to mention it. We document what RS say about it. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The allegations you consider as "false" are also considered "unproven". -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Page 147 of the IG report: "Page also told the CHS during the meeting that the "core lie" against him in the media "is that [Page] met with these sanctioned Russian officials, several of which I've never met in my entire life." Page said that the "core lie" concerned "Sechin [who] is the main guy, the head of Rosneft ... [and] there's another guy I had never even heard of, you know he's like, in the inner circle." When asked about that person's name, Page said "I can't even remember, it's just so outrageous." This needs to be added concerning the Rosneft allegations, as does the reference on pg 187 primary sub source showing texts which disprove Steele's allegation that there were bribes involved between Page and Rosneft: "Application No. 1 and months prior to Renewal Application No. 2, raised doubts about the reliability of Steele's descriptions of information in his election reports. During the FBI's January interview, at which Case Agent 1, the Supervisory Intel Analyst, and representatives of NSD were present, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele's reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source's statements in multiple sections of the reporting. 336 For example, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that, while Report 80 stated that Trump's alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow had been "confirmed" by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump's alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was "rumor and speculation" and that he/she had not been able to confirm the story. A second example provided by the Primary Sub-source was Report 134's description of a meeting allegedly held between Carter Page and Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft, a Russian energy conglomerate. 337 Report 134 stated that, according to a "close associate" of Sechin, Sechin offered "PAGE/TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft" in return for the lifting of sanctions against the company. 338 The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/ her subsources furnished information for that part of Report 134 through a text message, but said that the sub-source never stated that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page. 339 We reviewed the texts and did not find any discussion of a bribe, whether as an interest in Rosneft itself or a "brokerage."340

Whoa! Stop now. You're engaging in OR and misusing a primary source. Wait til RS deal with it and then document what they say. That's how we work here. We are REQUIRED to be "behind the curve." -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

How am I misusing a primary source? Why do you consider the IG report to not be a RS? If you want the refutation of the Rosneft allegation quoted from a mainstream publication, here is the WSJ on the subject: "On the surveillance warrant on the peripheral and unimportant Carter Page, we learn that a host of mistakes, omissions and outright fabrications “made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.” Exculpatory evidence was ignored. Mr. Page conveyed persuasively that he had never spoken to or communicated with Paul Manafort whose intermediary with Russian co-conspirators Mr. Page was supposed to be. Mr. Steele’s implausible claim of a giant dangled Rosneft bribe was denied even by Mr. Steele’s own source as the inspector general was able to confirm by looking at the source’s text messages. Still unexplained, and inexplicable, is why the FBI was in a panic to eavesdrop on Mr. Page at all. Nobody could have believed Mr. Steele’s story about him. More than ever it seems FBI headquarters, from which the demand originated, was under some unidentified outside pressure to spy on the Trump campaign." https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-horowitz-horror-show-11576022683 This clearly states that the allegation of a Rosneft bribe was found by the IG to be without merit. Will you add the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.136.28.10 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be woven throughout the article that the dossier had little to no role in getting surveillance on Page. That no longer seems to be the case. The so-called “Steele dossier” was, actually, crucial to the FBI’s decision to seek secret surveillance of Page.[1] There is actually all kinds of stuff in that article that is rather interesting. Also from the report itself things like FBI documents reflect that another of Steele's sub-sources who reviewed the election reporting told the FBI in August 2017 that whatever information in the Steele reports that was attributable to him/her had been "exaggerated" and that he/she did not recognize anything as originating specifically from him/her. which seems to be a common thread though the whole report.[2][3] PackMecEng (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Also the report states "it was just talk." WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/ her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest." in regards to the golden shower stuff from the Rolling Stone article and the IG report. PackMecEng (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This new information is going to be exciting, and we'll be adding more to the article, and because some of it is negative toward Steele, I suspect you and Atsme won't object to including it.

Because the IG report is a primary source, we must avoid OR and wait for RS, not fringe sources, to deal with it. It will come. There is work to do! I'm creating more Google Alerts for this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I never object to changes being made in the name of accuracy, particularly changes that vindicate me and what I've been saying all along. The changes are only just beginning. Wait for it... ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk about the pee tape

According to the IG Report, WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest." So it is now clear that the infamous Pee Tape allegation came out of a conversation with friends over beers and was made in jest. How should we integrate this information into the article? It is a fundamental change from what we've had so far. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Good question. It has been a rumor in Moscow for several years, long before the dossier, and commonly used in jest when Russians make fun of Trump.

Now find RS which deal with the pee tape rumors and allegation. We have to resist the temptation of quoting directly from the IG report without using secondary sources. That would be forbidden OR use of a primary source. The Mueller Report, dossier, and IG report are sources we can't use directly.

Bring whatever RS you find here and let's develop something. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

RS are not interested in this because it dispels the narrative that's been pushed by many, many people for years now. A lot of reporters would look foolish. Those who criticized the Nunes memo look foolish, those who insisted the dossier was not part of the FISA applications for Page look foolish, those pushing the false rumor that Page was a foreign agent look foolish (he was actually working for another US agency), etc. So how are we supposed to handle that? Taibbi wrote an opinion piece over at Rolling Stone - here, and here are some pieces from the Federalist that cover the IG's testimony today here here and here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ernie, are you telling us there cannot be such a thing as a Reliable Source? That would more or less invalidate Wikipedia, among other things. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that. I'm saying RS seem reluctant to cover this because it will discredit or dispel what a lot of them wrote back a year or two ago about this topic. Let's see which RS come out and say, actually the Nunes memo was largely accurate, and yes the FISA warrant against Page heavily relied on the Steele dossier which had big issues and which was misrepresented to the court. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

the Nunes memo was largely accurate is simply false. the FISA warrant against Page heavily relied on the Steele dossier Not really, because they got wiretaps on Page in 2013 or 2014. soibangla (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Those who criticized the Nunes memo look foolish With the exception of confirming Crossfire was opened because of the Downer tip and not the dossier, the Nunes memo was loaded with trash. those who insisted the dossier was not part of the FISA applications People correctly said the dossier was not the driver of the FISA applications, not that it wasn't included in them. the false rumor that Page was a foreign agent look foolish (he was actually working for another US agency) He worked for the CIA from 2008 to 2013, then they put a FISA tap on him in 2013 or 2014, evidently on concerns he had switched sides. And that FISA tap was years before the dossier. soibangla (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

According to the IG, the Steele Dossier played a "central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order." There's no other way to read that. Central and essential role "to seek," that is, without the dossier, they may not have sought it. It absolutely was the driver behind the FISA application. Also I'm not sure you are correct with your timing of the FISA warrant on Page - It was done in 2016. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but they sought the warrant in August 2016, before they acquired the dossier the next month. Their suspicions were not triggered by the dossier. soibangla (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Where are you getting this information? They did not seek the FISA warrant before they had the dossier. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

As noted above, when the team first sought to pursue a FISA order for Page in August 2016...On September 19, 2016, the same day that the Crossfire Hurricane team first received Steele's election reporting soibangla (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are correct with your timing of the FISA warrant Reports: Carter Page Was Subject to FISA Warrant in 2013/2014 soibangla (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, the Crossfire Hurricane warrants were the second time Page had been under investigation. That is why the bar was so low despite the politically sensitive nature of the investigation: Page was already a person of interest. Guy (help!) 23:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. He had previously been in contact with known Russian agents, been warned, been the subject of a FISA warrant, and even after all that, he seemed to continue/increase(?) his Russian visits, and his pro-Russian and anti-American comments. He seemed to be choosing Russia over America. Then, during the campaign, the Trump campaign was briefed by the FBI that they would be approached by Russian agents, and to report such contacts. (The FBI knew that this was already happening since 2014-15.) Ignoring all that, he actively worked as a representative of the campaign (although instructed that he was on his own...wink...wink.) He even admitted under oath that he might have had conversations about the sanctions with Rosneft. The fact that he repeatedly lied about contacts with Russians showed his consciousness of guilt. A "person of interest" doesn't begin to describe just how interesting he was. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, extend, not seek. The initial application was made before the dossier was available. And do remember that Steele was the former head of the MI6 Russia desk, a highly credible individual with a proven track record based on these very sources. Guy (help!) 23:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of the responses to Mr Ernie are not quite accurate. Granted, much of the material is based in part on either biased reporting in RS or more than likely RECENTISM - we don’t have the Barr-Durham criminal investigation reports, yet. Yes, I am still of the mind (as are other editors) that this article needs a serious re-write based on updated RS as soon as the media sees fit to issue their corrections. I believe the latter is more likely to happen as soon as the Barr-Durham criminal investigations are made public. The investigations by Mueller and Horowitz have certainly shed new light on this topic. For example, a recent report by The Hill states, However, Horowitz found that the FBI never had any real evidence against Page before beginning its investigation, codenamed Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Soon after the investigation was opened, it became clear that Page had been wrongly accused and was, in fact, working for the CIA, not the Russians. I find it ironic that this article is based primarily on material resulting from foreign interference in a US election in that the cited sources published kompromat, and unsubstantiated allegations by foreign entities that were basically paid to interfere in the 2016 election, including the Steele dossier which, in a nutshell, is the result of paid opposition research by a British investigator who obtained material from Russian operatives in an attempt to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t The Rolling Stone article by Taibbi mentioned? See the Feb 2018 article by the BBC and compare it to recent updates...if you can find any. I found an Op-Ed in the WSJ. Perhaps after the partisan impeachment runs its course, more accurate information/corrections will be published...or we can just wait for the Barr-Durham reports. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

These statements that you're making about the reliable sources not wanting to look foolish are quite loaded and not backed up by anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ernie, if the publications were to behave as you speculate, they would not be considered Reliable Sources, hence my initial comment about invalidating all our efforts here. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, not really, no. Virtually every source I follow has been skeptical of the literal existence of the pee tape pretty much from the outset. Even the Obama bros at Crooked Media. While it's extremely likely that the Kremlin do have kompromat on Trump it's much more likely to be related to money laundering for the Russian mob and/or sexual assault. And actually given his obvious paranoia about financial records I am putting the latter a distant second. Guy (help!) 23:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

Coming changes.....

Without citing any sources right now, but just from my reading and news coverage, I can see that there will be changes to this article, and that's good. As is required by our policies, articles are written based on the RS available at the time, but not for future events. As time passes and sources describe those events, we can then add them and use them to modify existing content. Yes, it's frustrating, but we are supposed to be behind the curve here.

Some of the changes will be about Christopher Steele (some not very flattering), others about the dossier, and yet others about the Nunes memo, IG report, Russia investigation, Carter Page and the FISA warrants, FBI, etc. I hope that editors will place the content in the proper articles, because not all will belong here. As more RS write about the IG report, we'll have more RS we can use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This is frustrating for those of us who have pointed out the problems in this article for years now. The IG Report shows that RS on this topic has been less than accurate. A sad day for journalism. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

RS on this topic has been less than accurate Examples, please? soibangla (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you like to complain, but do you have a solution that would help the project?

All this time, should we have allowed the use of unreliable sources and conspiracy theories, most of which are still unreliable and false? Should we get rid of WP:CRYSTAL and allow guesswork to guide the creation of our content? Should we have allowed the use of Russian propaganda direct from RT (which is what is found in those right-wing media sources)? Seriously, what should we do?

Yes, we are now learning that there were procedural mistakes, some people are going to get punished or warned, and procedures will be improved, but the fundamental findings are unaffected.

• There is no evidence that personal bias affected the findings and conclusions of the official investigations and reports. Rather, there was "gross incompetence and negligence" rather than intentional malfeasance or political bias.
• Massive co-operation/collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians was proven. Trump welcomed it, facilitated it, and has said he'll do it again in 2020.
• The campaign interference was by Russia, not Ukraine, and it was "sweeping and systematic".
• The Russia investigation was not triggered by the Steele Report, much of which has been corroborated.
• A spy was never placed inside the Trump campaign.

The conspiracy theories are still wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Even MSNBC has admitted, the Dossier was based on rumour. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of it may have been, but most not so much. Lots of it has been corroborated. That's one reason that the FBI didn't need to depend on it very much, as they had independent corroboration of some of its allegations, and this also led the FBI to treat the dossier seriously. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that both Carter Page and Sergei Millian were unwitting/unwilling sources/sub-sources for certain allegations, and they are both considered untrustworthy self-promoters who may have exaggerated what they were talking about. The events may have happened, but they may have embellished it and exaggerated their own roles and proximity to the events. This will naturally affect the veracity of their conversations, which were then, unknown to them at the time, repeated to Steele. Steele just documented what his sources said, without claiming everything in the dossier was proven to be true.

The dossier is still "raw intelligence", a rough draft now frozen in time. It was not supposed to ever be seen by the public. It was not a finished and finally edited product when BuzzFeed News published it without permission. Imagine if someone found and published your first draft of a novel you planned on publishing AFTER a couple years of editing and fact-checking. That's essentially what happened to Steele. That's not his fault. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a forum. Come to my talk page. BullRangifer (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The dossier has proven to be worthless. Remember what Chuck Schumer said about badmouthing the intelligence community? GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "Worthless" is the opinion of unreliable sources and Russian propaganda, not RS and the intelligence community. Can you name a serious allegation in the dossier which has been proven false? No, because the ones claimed to have been proven false are at best still "unproven". -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC) I give up. Anybody else wanna have a go at this? GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC) I see this is getting into forbidden WP:NOTAFORUM territory, so feel free to continue on my talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Both titles are permissible, but consensus clearly favors the proposed target. BD2412 T 19:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump–Russia dossier → Steele dossier – Per the recent discussion above, there seems to be strong indications that the WP:COMMONNAME as used in most RS is now "Steele dossier". — JFG ^talk 14:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I believe the most recent previous request is at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 15#Requested move 28 December 2018. Dekimasuよ! 15:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, and a lot has changed during the last year. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Changing my !vote. See below. Support. While the current, descriptive, title gets far more hits when not enclosed in quotes, Steele dossier does get lots of hits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, for this we have redirects... Guy (help!) 23:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support These days it appears to be how most RS are referring to it. Also judging by google hits it is the most used. "Steele dossier" at 831,000 results, "Trump dossier" at 368,000 results, "Russia dossier" at 337,000 results, and "Trump-Russia dossier" at 274,000 results. When not in quotes I am getting 26.7M for Steele Dossier and 20.8 for Trump-Russia Dossier. PackMecEng (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump Russia w/o quotes gets about ONE BILLION googlies. Also, most Americans won't be able to spell ye oide "Steele" and "Steel Dossier" gets +/- zilch. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but this is not the Trump Russia article. This is the Steele Dossier article, which is the most common name for this collection of reports. PackMecEng (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support This does appear to have become the common name for it. And "Trump-Russia dossier" will still be a redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Agree with MelanieN's above comment. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: the name "Trump–Russia dossier" is pithy and self-explanatory. Most people would not know who Steele is if it weren't for the Trump & Russia connection. If there were multiple topics worthy of the title "Trump–Russia dossier" (Trump–Russia dossier 2?) and Steele had one dossier of significance, I'd opt for renaming this THE Steele dossier. I'd be okay with the suggestion of "Steele's Trump–Russia dossier", or a "Trump–Russia Steele dossier" title which would preserve more title continuity. X1\ (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: See earlier Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 15#Requested move 28 December 2018 and even earlier Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 6#Requested move 10 January 2018. X1\ (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This tends to focus excessively on the person who wrote it, rather than the content, which is the historically and politically important bit. Guy (help!) 23:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Something to consider on that subject would be an article like Mueller Report, which is not titled Report on the "Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election". That is actually an example used in the policy WP:COMMONNAME. I think this article is along the same lines. Plus it is the name the vast majority of RS refer to it as. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, that's a mark of the success of hard-right media in framing the discussion more than anything else. Guy (help!) 17:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  @JzG: Are you kidding? I gave policy backed by stats and an example within that policy that covers this almost perfectly. Your response to that is Vast right-wing conspiracy? I do not mean to sound like a bitch but what the fuck? PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  JzG is absolutely correct. Right wing messaging is the reason "Steele dossier" is a thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, not so much really. Also even if that was the case it is completely irrelevant to policy. So it is kind of a double worthless argument really. PackMecEng (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Arguments like that are like a brand new account popping up and going on about how Wikipedia has a left wing bias. It's nonsense and worthless while giving their argument no credibility. PackMecEng (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support The Clinton campaign paid a foreign agent to pay Russians to provide disinformation, some provided in jest over beers, that was used to investigate a political rival that had an enormous impact on that rival’s administration. In the subsequent investigation information was falsified and secret US courts were misled to a degree unheard of before, and innocent Americans were unlawfully surveilled (per IG testimony). We should put aside our dislike of Trump to accurately call this what it was. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The Clinton campaign paid a foreign agent to pay Russians is false soibangla (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

They didn't even know Steele was involved until after the election. There was a legal firewall between the DNC/Clinton campaign and Steele. One hand didn't know what the other was doing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

So Ernie. "Clinton Dossier"? "Obama Dossier"? SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mr. Steele is not himself a recognizable figure, while his investigation, as one of the earliest into the Trump campaign, made findings that are considered historic. As later investigations mounted, in some instances the high position of a later investigator (see: Mueller report) or the historicity of a process (see: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump), or the contentiousness of a finding and its particularity to the person issuing it (see: Nunes memo) became, in context, as historic as a finding itself. But in terms of chronology and context, the Trump-Russia dossier first most widely and firmly cemented a Trump-Russia nexus onto the public’s radar, so for reasons of clarity and accuracy the current name should stand. Renaming this article to “Steele dossier” would be like renaming the article “Nixon White House tapes” to, instead, “Sony TC-800B open-reel tapes (made by a temporary DC resident),” accidentally largely obfuscating the historic import of what the article describes. -66.167.64.114 (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I have no policy-based objections to this change, although such a change will assist the narrative of the Forces of Darkness. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Scjessey, say more. The arguments by X1\, Guy, and 66.167.64.114 are pretty compelling, and I'm considering changing my !vote. A descriptive title has more weight than using Steele's name alone. If his name must be in the title, I would favor Steele's Trump–Russia dossier. The actual topic is much more important than Steele's name, and we'd lose that if we changed it to Steele dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  But at this point, "Steele dossier" is the common term, because it has been repeated ad infinitum by Republicans and conservative media. Sometimes I am in awe of the messaging discipline of the American right wing. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey Such as “climate change” for “global warming” (after global warming activists realized that the term was a hard sell in the winter) or even “progressive” for “liberal” after the latter term got a bad rap, even being referred to as “The ‘L’ word.” (Do you ever hear conservatives running away form that perfectly accurate descriptive title?) The left has never evidenced itself as being fans of the immortal bard; you know, something about roses and names. Therefore, your comment seems rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Can’t we stick to the obvious? The Steele Dossier is by far what it is known as. Even Democrats during the recent senate hearings with the IG used the term. Documents, investigations and such as often named for their authors or aggregators (Steele was partially both in the dossier we are discussing) such as the Holinshed's Chronicles.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: You do know I support the change to "Steele dossier", right? I'm just saying that right wing messaging is very, very good. Democrats, by contrast, are absolutely awful at it. And as for the "global warming" comment, "climate change" is a more accurate description of all the weird changes to the planet caused by the activities of humanity, and it was decided by SCIENTISTS, not Democrats. Now stop trying to argue with me for agreeing with you, because that's just going to make me flip my !vote out of annoyance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Among the general public (as opposed to the minority such as some WP editors who actually pay attention to news details) it is thought of as the Trump-Russia thing written by some British guy. "Steele Dossier" redirects here for the cognoscenti. I would leave the title as is. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@User:SPECIFICO If you would google the respective terms, as another editer did and pointed out the results, you’d fine your assertion is untrue.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nix. The google hit counts refer to the number of linked pages returned, not the number of searches. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here is the Google trends results for the two showing how much they are searched for.[4] PackMecEng (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what? That Steele Dossier is searched for much more than Trump-Russia Dossier? PackMecEng (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Those are exactly the incidences of the search terms, per my response to HistoryBuff. But I think that is more or less orthogonal to my argument for keeping things as is. Anyway, folks are likely to punch "Trump" into the Wikipedia site search box and then they'll see this article. With the redirect in place, I think we're good. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can see where you are coming from. I just have a different opinion. PackMecEng (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Observation: When comparing the two terms at trends.google.com, "Trump-Russia dossier" dominates: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=steele%20dossier,%2Fg%2F11g5_dy_vq You can choose other than U.S. and other time periods. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

~ blush ~ Oops. My error. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What you have selected there is the topic, which the name comes from our own article vs the search term. If you have both on search term Steele Dossier is more common. PackMecEng (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I'm not accustomed to using Google Trends. How does one get it to compare just the topics, or just the search terms, so that they aren't mixed, IOW comparing apples to oranges? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer Search for the first term, then click "+ Add term" and search for the second one. They explain it here. You can compare up to 5 by clicking "+ Add term" for each new one. It isn't worth much, IMO. Add "Steele" and both dossier titles flatline because a separate search just for "Steele" produces the Pittsburgh Steelers and a porn actress. Add "Trump", and "Steele" flatlines as well. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Steele dossier per COMMONNAME. Trump-Russia ran its course - there was no collusion. The new (and correct) name may even draw more readers with expectations of major corrections, or we may just have to wait for the Barr-Durham finale. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Atsme, be careful with those terms. Mueller did not prove "conspiracy"/"coordination", but the Mueller Report documents boatloads of proven co-operation/collusion. There is mountains of evidence for that. See this exposition on two of the terms: Mueller Report#Conspiracy or coordination.

  Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2: "In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]' – a term that appears in the appointment order – with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

  Note these words: "That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."

  Why did Mueller point that out? Because the "two parties [did indeed take] actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." That's textbook co-operation/collusion.

  See also here: Mueller Report#Redacted_report_findings_compared_to_Barr_letter:

  The New York Times reported instances in which the Barr letter omitted information and quoted sentence fragments out of context in ways that significantly altered the findings in the report, including:

  • Omission of words and a full sentence that twice suggested there was knowing and complicit behavior between the Trump campaign and Russians that stopped short of direct coordination, which may constitute conspiracy.

  Terminology is important. There are two aspects to the allegation of a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". Don't stop at "conspiracy", just because it wasn't proven. The next word "co-operation" is even more important, because that describes what actually is proven to have happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support, changing to Steele dossier per commonname. Though perhaps phoney dossier would be more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support- Steele Dossier does appear to be the most commonly used name in the media now, and I expect that that name will continue to be used throughout President Trump's likely second term in the White House. AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not the common name now but it will be as soon as Wikipedia changes the title. Has it occurred to anyone that people search for Steele dossier because they hear it mentioned and don't know what it is? What does that prove? Right now searches for Steele dossier return many variations (Christopher Steele’s Trump Dossier, Russia dossier, Trump-Russia dossier, Trump dossier, Trump 'dossier,' 'Dossier' author Chris Steele, Donald Trump Russia Dossier, the so-called Steele dossier, Steele's dossier). A search for Steele turned up several clothing designers, a chevy dealer, and a risk management firm. Search for Trump Russia, and you get the Trump-Russia dossier with Wikipedia at the top. The current title has the five characteristics of a good Wikipedia article title. It's unambiguous and easily recognizable by anyone who hasn't been in a coma since 2016. Moving it to Steele dossier is a way of hiding what the article is about. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. More accurate title. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I've spent way too much time in the last few days looking at every mention of the - uh - document, and the picture is inconclusive. Then I looked at the reasons stated by the editors supporting the move - sorry, throwing WP:COMMONNAME at me just ain't enough. Neither is "seems to be" (JFG proposing the move), "appears to be" (PackMecEng), "appears to have become" (MelanieN), "agree with MelanieN's above comment" (HistoryBuff), "per nom" (FlightTime and WTH does that even mean?), and I'm not going to wade into the political arguments or Scjessey's satire. Google search? Show me your browser history first - garbage in, garbage out, as it used to be called in the old days. Unless you can come up with a clear majority of reliable sources that are not switching back and forth between a number of titles for the "document", we should keep the title agreed upon in the last four move requests. The topic seems to have faded from the headlines anyway. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I gave states of all kinds for hits and how often terms are searched with sources. If you would like I could change "appears to be" to something more definitive? But the sources speak for themselves. It is unambiguously the more commonly used and searched term. PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Common name" is not the only criteria for determining an article title. Wikipedia:Article titles makes that clear. Descriptions are also allowed, and are common practice here. -- BullRangifer (talk)

  That is correct, but it does fit all the criteria. Steele Dossier is easily the most recognizable, shown by most used and searched. It is neutral with no positive or negative connotations. Precision is easy, it is exactly what it is. More concise than the current name. It is also consistant with other similar reports such as Mueller Report. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support- as per WP:COMMONNAME, never heard anyone refer to it as the trump-russia dossier except on wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• That was the most common name, or rather "description", used by RS in the beginning. Gradually Steele's name has been connected with it, even though most people are clueless about who Steele is. They still see the dossier as about Trump's relations to Russia, hence the value of a descriptive title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Changing my !vote. The arguments by X1\, Guy, SPECIFICO, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and 66.167.64.114 are pretty compelling.

Common name is not the only criteria for determining an article title. Wikipedia:Article titles makes that clear. Descriptions are also allowed, and are very common practice here.

A change would be like changing Peanut butter cookies to Mrs. Rorer's cookies. Yes, she's possibly the earliest creator (1902). What's most important about these cookies, their contents or their creator?

A descriptive title has more weight than using Steele's name alone. If his name must be in the title, I would favor Steele's Trump–Russia dossier. The actual topic is much more important than Steele's name, and we'd lose that if we changed it to Steele dossier. The topic must not get buried. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per common name. Cjhard (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MelanieN, PackMecEng and especially Rusf10. petrarchan47คุก 23:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per common name.--MONGO (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

‘Corroboration Zero’: An Inspector General’s Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke

Please read the Rolling Stone article written by Matt Taibbi. I used it as one of four reliable sourced citations. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/ 2600:1700:E790:2C50:E806:B55:A86E:FBB3 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are you editing logged out? Matt Taibbi is an opinion writer. He only has opinions. Here's a source from Business Insider from earlier in 2019 that talks about what allegations from the dossier had (by that point) been found to be credible, and which hadn't.[5] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This article has a good section dealing with the Veracity and verification of specific allegations. It describes how some allegations have been verified, while others remain unverified, with sometimes conflicting reports for or against their veracity. I suggest it be studied. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

As an actual investigative journalist, Timothy L. O'Brien, pointed out in April, Taibbi apparently never heard of George Papadopoulos whose meetings and conversations originally set the Trump-Russia probe in motion. Another O'Brien quotefrom the same article on the occasion of the fifth or sixth attempt to remove Trump and Russia from the title of this article appearing to be headed to a successful conclusion: reality is likely to keep intruding on everybody who has been ushering Trump-Russia coverage into the grave. Follow the money. See also laundry. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Speaking about veracity: AP fact check, December 10, 2019. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, that's a great article by O'Brien. I too was concerned about the wildly inaccurate and sensational claims made by Taibbi, who, like Greenwald, used to be a serious reporter. They have both been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid, and Taibbi's ignorance of the trigger for the Russia investigation is absolutely damning. His ignorance of the dossier and its many corrobated allegations is also damning. Thanks for sharing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Taibbi is somewhat of an expert on Russia, having lived and reported there for many years. Do not dismiss him because you don't like what he's writing. What specific claims by Taibbi do you dispute? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I used to be a fan of Taibbi, but he has drifted into more fanatical and screaming-headlines bait-click territory, with overly broad assertions that are counterfactual. He's not serious anymore, at least not in this article.

I object to his ignorance of the trigger of the Russia investigation (the dossier had ZERO to do with it) and of the dossier's proven claims, which are many, especially its central claim that the Trump campaign co-operated with the Russians in their election interference. His ignorance is apparent in that article and shows he has either not been following along with the evidence or has drunk the same Trump/Putin Kool-Aid that Greenwald has been drinking. They are now propagandists for Russia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

All that’s needed for verification that the Steele dossier was debunked is the Mueller report that was published in this AP report, a credible secondary source. They provided a line item presentation of the Mueller report findings. The AP is a primary news wire for most online media so the news publications that consider accuracy over bias will have published the AP report. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not an AP story, it's a Washington Times story. That's a poor source. O3000 (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Do we know exactly *what* "played a central and essential role?"

Intelligence professionals say raw intel like the dossier commonly contains some nuggets of verifiable info amidst lots of junk. Their job is to distinguish the two. To some laypersons, "lots of junk" naturally means "totally useless," but that's not how it works. Look at p. 201 of the report, which states "In addition, the recent investigative results section of the application included references to the following," followed by big redactions. Hey, what's in there? We have no idea, but we've known this since Feb 2017:

For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN...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

and that's quite significant. Perhaps because of redactions, I don't see if or where the IG Report states exactly what content in the dossier "played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order." We know a Yahoo News story was included, but only to show that Page denied allegations against him. Presumably we can exclude the peetape accusation, but what about the stuff in the green box above, or other stuff in the dossier that reinforced what FBI previously heard from an unrelated source and the dossier confirmed? As far as I can tell, we can't really answer that question, but we also can't conclude that "lots of junk" played a central and essential role. soibangla (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice to know exactly which parts of the dossier played that role, but we don't know. We just know that the dossier did play a "central role", AND the IG tells us THE ROLE! While the basis for the FISA warrant was lots of other information already possessed by the FBI, the dossier, when it arrived much later (and ended up as an appendix), served a "central role" by pushing "[the FISA proposal] over the line' in terms of establishing probable cause." It was the single drop that made the cup overflow. It was a small, but vital, role. They already had this mass of evidence that was almost enough, but not quite enough. They were already at "the line", but it was still "a close call". They just needed a nudge over the line. The dossier did that. That was its role.

See page 359 (number at bottom of page):

We concluded that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016, played a central and essential role in the decision by FBI OGC to support the request for FISA surveillance targeting Carter Page, as well as the Department's ultimate decision to seek the FISA order. In particular, the OGC Unit Chief told us that she thought probable cause was a "close call" when the team first proposed seeking a FISA in mid-August and separately when she discussed the idea with 01 around the same time. She said that it was the Steele reporting received in September, concerning Page's alleged activities with Russian officials in the summer of 2016, that "pushed it over" the line in terms of establishing probable cause that Page was acting in concert with Russian officials. The OGC Unit Chief's testimony was consistent with the testimony of the 01 Unit Chief who told us that the Steele reporting was "what kind of pushed it over the line" in terms of the FBI being ready to pursue FISA authority targeting Page. -- Horowitz report, p. 359 (bolding added)

BullRangifer (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

May be something usable in this WaPo article link. Some key passages in my opinion: That set of allegations, which became known as the Steele dossier, was used by FBI agents to get approval from a FISA court in October 2016 to secretly monitor Page’s communications. The court-approved surveillance was reauthorized three times, amounting to a year of surveillance. The inspector general found major problems with the assertions the FBI made to the court — relying on damaging accusations that the FBI could not substantiate, and not disclosing exculpatory information. These "damaging accusations" seem to refer to the Steele dossier, and it is important to note that the FBI could not substantiate them, but ran with them anyways.

It is important to also note that, in the FISA application, an FBI lawyer had retroactively altered an email to make it look as though Page was not a source for the CIA, when in fact the agency had told the FBI as early as August 2016 that it had a previous relationship with Page. This also could tie a bit into the "Spygate" theory, in that the FBI sent a confidential informant to talk to him about his alleged relationship with Manafort. But in that secretly recorded conversation, Page denied knowing Manafort, saying that Manafort wouldn’t even respond to Page’s emails, according to the inspector general’s report.

There's a lot more to unpack here, but we need to wait for the reporting to catch up. But to answer the headline's question, according to the WaPo article the unsubstantiated allegations in the dossier played a central and essential role. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are two things to mention here. The first is that the larger narrative about Page and the FISA warrants mostly belongs in the Carter Page article. The second is that some of it definitely belongs here, and probably also in some other articles related to the Trump campaign, Russian interference, and various investigations.

So we need to figure out what's relevant in this article and how to frame it in relation to what we already have in this article.

Mr Ernie, would you like to suggest some wording right here in this thread, something we can then develop for inclusion? The WaPo article is definitely usable.

Before I forget this, you might appreciate this article about Carter Page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Using the WaPo as a source we could add details to the "Inspector General's Russian interference and FISA investigation" section, namely the fact that the FBI was not able to substantiate sections of the dossier, especially as they related to Page, and indeed did not disclose to the FISA court that such material was unverified. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, a move in that direction is warranted. Would you please provide exact wordings that we can use in the article? Going from our personal understandings of what's in the source to formulating exact NPOV and factual wordings based on the source is a journey, but it must happen. On the talk page we can say "not able to substantiate sections of the dossier", but we can't say that in the article unless the source says exactly that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot more to unpack here Indeed there is, but the reliable sources I've seen have analyzed the major takeaways from what is a dense and complex report, without providing a comprehensive deep dive. Reading the report myself, I've found several significant findings that I haven't seen reported in reliable sources, but I cannot add them without running afoul of original research. soibangla (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Goes a little to what I was saying earlier, in that RS seems to be uninterested in updating and researching stories about the IG Report, maybe in part because it shows that previous reports had some big issues. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a complicated and nuanced report that does not lend itself to simplistic explanations, unless you're Sean Hannity who immediately asserted "everything we said, everything we reported, everything we told you was dead-on center accurate," when in reality the main takeaway of the report demolished the conspiracy theories he and others had pushed for nearly three years. soibangla (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I object to the implication of bad motives ("that RS seems to be uninterested in updating and researching stories about the IG Report, maybe in part because it shows that previous reports had some big issues.") That type of motivation does drive the extremely biased reporting from fringe and extreme media on both the right- and left-wings, but mainstream media do get around to covering difficult and contradicting information and then issuing corrections, either as direct apologies or in the form of updated reports. The WaPo article above is one such report, and this WaPo article about the Nunes memo is as well. Let's not engage in such thinking, as it's not helpful. Let's just deal with the reports that are forthcoming in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that the Steele Dossier, along with the whole Trump-Russia Collusion narrative, is going to go down as one of the biggest hoaxes in American political history. The mainstream media is heavily implicated in promoting it, in spite of knowing that it was on shaky ground, which has curious implications for Wikipedia since it depends primarily on mainstream media for sourcing on current political topics. I think once John Durham's investigation is complete, and which may include some grand jury indictments and federal prosecutions (although, unfortunately, not of any journalists), we'll have a better idea of what went on, and may finally see CNN, WaPo, NYTimes, and MSNBC start to retract some of their reporting. It may be a while longer before his investigation is complete, although I think it will be wrapped up before President Trump begins his likely second term in office. AppliedCharisma (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what Durham concludes, and if it supports what Barr says or what the media says. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the IG Report did, in a large part, vindicate Sean Hannity's reporting, but we'll see if Durham completes the sweep. AppliedCharisma (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The consistent and primary thrust of Hannity's narrative was there was "massive political bias" and spying by the deep state. The IG Report flatly rejected that. Even in regard to the Page wiretaps, Horowitz attributed the problems to "gross incompetence and negligence" rather than a nefarious scheme. Horowitz also asked Durham if he had any information that might cause Horowitz to change his findings, but Durham didn't. soibangla (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

What the media says? No, what Horowitz says. Horowitz asked Durham if he had any information that might cause Horowitz to change his findings, but Durham didn't. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The IG Report is a secondary source, citing it does not breach WP:OR or WP:RS, and it should be free to be quoted extensively

I see lots of erroneous references to WP:OR prohibiting direct use of the IG report.

1) Firstly, WP:OR does NOT ban primary sources. It bans original analysis of primary sources. A direct quote of a conclusion or executive summary, in context, by its nature is not original analysis.

WP:OR says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

2) Secondly, and more importantly, the IG report IS a secondary source. It is a report that is one step removed from the events themselves and contains an author's analysis and evaluation. It explicitly relies on primary accounts and in fact was quite careful not to go beyond what documentary evidence (i.e. the primary accounts) said. The Steele dossier and correspondence relating to it by e.g. Steel and others are primary sources. The IG report is a secondary source. Here is WP: OR on priamry and secondary sources:

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources."

"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[e] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[f] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[g]"

The various interpretations of WP:OR by BullRangifer and others opposing directly quoting the IG reports conclusions as secondary RS are therefore completely wrong and this article should have a lot more material from the IG report added ASAP.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

While we're at it, here is an excerpt from WP:RS:

"What counts as a reliable source

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

All three can affect reliability.

Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[7] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. "

Horowitz is independent of both the Steele dossier and the FBI, has umpteen RS media articles about his reputation for independence and reliability and has an extensive professional structure in place for checking his facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. He would have far more scrutiny given to those issues than a typical RS media reporter.

It is totally wrongheaded to oppose this secondary RS from being quoted as freely (more so, even) as any other.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Cause(s) for the discrepancies between dossier and sources

"According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst, the cause for the discrepancies between the election reporting and explanations later provided to the FBI by Steele's Primary Sub-source and sub-sources about the reporting was difficult to discern and could be attributed to a number of factors. These included miscommunications between Steele and the Primary Sub-source, exaggerations or misrepresentations by Steele about the information he obtained, or misrepresentations by the Primary Sub-source and/or sub-sources when questioned by the FBI about the information they conveyed to Steele or the Primary Sub-source. [342]" Source: Horowitz IG Report, pp. 188-189

FYI, "election reporting" is the term used by the IG for the dossier.

This important statement is cherry-picked by me from the IG Report, so we can't use it as is, but if RS have quoted it, we can then use it.

As it stands above, this is my blatant OR, IOW we can't use it in any paraphrased or interpretive manner, and it's not accompanied here by secondary or tertiary sources which tell us what weight to give it. We need that.

Since the sub-sources include Carter Page and Sergei Millian, we know they were unwitting/unwilling sources who are trying to cover their asses, so "misrepresentations by the Primary Sub-source and/or sub-sources when questioned by the FBI" is a highly likely explanation. Steele never presented the allegations by his sources as proven fact, and inaccuracies certainly can exist. While this certainly could explain any inaccuracies, the above is just an explanation for "discrepancies" between the dossier and sources, which may or may not be related to "inaccuracies".

Sergei Millian is nearly certainly the "Primary Sub-source" (Source D and E). He is among the seven sources who provided the information for the "golden showers" allegation.

According to the founders of Fusion GPS, seven Russian sources told Steele about the salacious "golden showers" incident at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. According to the dossier, these included Sources D and E (Millian) and others in [Steele's] "alphabet list of assets".

While many people, including Russians, do not believe the "pee tape" incident happened, Stanislav Belkovsky, Russian political analyst and a founder and director of the National Strategy Institute, disagrees: "Prostitutes around the city say the 'golden shower' orgy story is true".

Unfortunately, footnote 342 is still classified, but footnote 341 and its related content clearly describe Millian's information and his interview with the FBI.

For those curious about the sources used by Steele, see my sandbox: Steele dossier's anonymous sources. If you comment on the talk page, please ping me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

You're wrong about what constitutes OR, and what a secondary source is. Personal analysis of the IG report is OR. Refusing to wait for a newspaper to quote it is not. Every conclusion in the IG report that adds to the content of this article can and in fact should be used SeanusAurelius (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

For simple statements of uncontroversial facts that's true, but otherwise one risks creating a lot of controversy and problems. We usually avoid any other uses of primary sources. I've been editing here since 2003, and I used to add primary sources alongside the secondary sources, as a service to readers, and even then I have gotten into trouble. People have complained that I shouldn't use the primary source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You're confused about primary and secondary sources. The IG report is a reliable secondary source with regards to the Steele Dossier, not a parimary source.

It contains the analysis and evaluation of an author one step removed from the primary sources, uses primary sources as raw material, and has a professional structure for ensuring reliability.

From WP:RS:

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources."

"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[e] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[f] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[g]"

SeanusAurelius (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Must agree with SeanusAurelius that "the IG report is a reliable secondary source with regards to the Steele Dossier". Commenters on the IG report are secondary to the report and tertiary to the dossier. — JFG ^talk 17:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, agree as well. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

An interesting, if unorthodox argument. So by extension, is the House Intelligence Committee report a secondary RS about the actions of President Trump? SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

What? (as in Amber says) In that case, shouldn't Steele be considered the secondary source since the primary sources are the people reporting to him, making Horowitz the tertiary, and any media reporting on Horowitz's report the quaternary source? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC) A somethin-ary source: CNBC Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes! That makes Wikipedia the quintessential source. I'll go hoist this up the pole on the Trump article and see if it flies. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That's silly. I posted the quotes in both this discussion thread and the previous one on this page ("The IG Report is a secondary source, citing it does not breach WP:OR or WP:RS, and it should be free to be quoted extensively") to refute this line of flawed reasoning. A secondary source is one or more step removed from the primary events and contains analysis of them, as WP policy says.

Here's how it works, as per the WP policy I've quoted here and in the other discussion above:

0 steps removed = primary.

1 to n steps removed = secondary.

Compilation of secondary sources for convenient reference = tertiary. Includes Wikipedia itself.

Quaternary = not a thing.

Quintessential = a legitimate adjective but not relevant to the categorisation of a source as primary/secondary/tertiary

That's WP policy (and indeed, the normal 'dictionary definitions') regardless of editors' preconceptions. Do what I did and say "The IG report is a (proposed type) source because (criterion laid out in WP:OR or WP:RS). Only when (proposed type) = secondary will most or all of the criteria fit.

The IG report is a primary source for an article on the IG report. (0 steps removed) It's a secondary source with regards to the Steele Dossier. (1 step removed, analysis + evaluation by a party who did not feature in the Dossier or its production)

The House report in the objection raised here by SPECIFICO is indeed a secondary source with regards to the examined set of Trump's actions, as it is one step removed and is analytic/evaluative but is a partisan source. No one has argued that it has a reputation for objectivity and it is presumed not to be an RS. It fails on reliability, not its primary/secondary status.

In contrast, the IG has many RS noting his reputation for objectivity as well as a dedicated professional structure to ensure reliability and an enormous amount of scrutiny (so three of three WP criteria) and that is why RS from a wide spectrum of political views all treat the IG report as an RS.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

How would you rate the usability of the transcript of a trial court's proceedings? Is it a primary source or secondary source? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to try to go on too many tangents, and its important that we reach consensus, so what do you think and why? Try going through the exercise of applying the criteria. If it becomes relevant to the relationship of the IG report to the Steele Dossier in the future we will have to resolve an answer and even if not it might be a good exercise.

Remember: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."

I reason that more often than not a transcript is a raw record of actual participants in an event and is not one step removed nor contains the thinking of the author of the transcript, and makes no analytical or evaluative claims unlike e.g. the IG report. So most are probably primary, but it might depend on context and what the topic of the article you are writing is.

Coming back to the IG report, can you see any grounds for suggesting that the IG report more closely matches the WP criteria of a primary source than the secondary one? If not, can we move on and treat it as a reliable secondary source? SeanusAurelius (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The IG review is a primary source, and we shouldn't analyze or evaluate it. (What's with the questions? so what do you think and why, can you see any grounds for .. This isn't high school, you know.) On page i (page 4 of 478) of the PDF the IG lays out what the scope and methodology of their review of certain actions of the FBI was. Quote: our review did not independently seek to determine whether corroboration existed for the Steele election reporting; rather, our review was focused on information that was available to the FBI concerning Steele's reports prior to and during the pendency of the Carter Page FISA authority. The review was about FBI compliance with FBI procedures and, in particular, their FISA application procedures. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

1 and main) You haven't offered any rationale for why you think it's a primary source with respect to WP's guides, you just restated your conclusion that it was. Which WP criterion/criteria match the IG report being a primary source or don't match a secondary source?

2) I'm glad the IG review didn't do its own independent research on corroboration but instead analysed the existing FBI information. That shows that it's an analytic and evaluative report on existing primary documentation, a.k.a. a secondary source

3) Questions, when they aren't loaded or rhetorical, are part of polite dialogue. I wanted to know BullRangifer's take on it. He doesn't seem to have a response so far.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That's silly. Ya think? Quaternary - not a thing. It's a thing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

A quaternary source is not a thing. Outside of the context of article sources, primary, secondary and tertiary all mean things very different to what I described.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Rebooting back to the reason for this thread

Let's move this along....

The background for the quote above ("the cause for the discrepancies between the election reporting and explanations later provided to the FBI by Steele's Primary Sub-source and sub-sources about the reporting was difficult to discern...") is the later statements by the sources to the FBI. Some of their identities are known; they were interviewed by the FBI; and they were unwitting/unwilling sources, and thus hostile witnesses when they were interviewed. That is because some were viewed by the FBI as possible suspects/co-conspirators, and viewed by the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence as traitorous liabilities whose lives were expendable. They were friggin' scared when approached by the FBI.

Some of that contextual information (obviously not using my words!) must come before the quote above, otherwise it makes no sense.

We need to write something like this:

When some of Steele's sources were later interviewed by the FBI about the allegations sourced to them, they gave accounts that conflicted with Steele's renderings in the dossier. They indicated that Steele "misstated or exaggerated" the source's statements.[Horowitz IG Report, p. 187]

The IG found it difficult to discern the causes for the discrepancies between some dossier allegations and explanations later provided to the FBI by the sources for those allegations. The IG attributed the discrepancies to three possible factors: miscommunication between Steele and the sources, "exaggerations or misrepresentations by Steele", or misrepresentations by the sources when questioned by the FBI. Horowitz IG Report, pp. 188-189

Does that make sense? Is this a step in the right direction about the inclusion of some dossier-relevant aspects of the Horowitz IG report?

Even if this is considered a primary source, there are conditions under which it can be used, if done properly:

• Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

  • Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
  • Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
  • Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy. -- WP:PRIMARY

BullRangifer (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Just treat it as a secondary source - no one has been able to provide a rationale for why it isn't. This isn't a side issue, it's going to be central to how we treat all IG report information, including the bit you're interested in.

Care to justify this though: "That is because some were viewed by the FBI as possible suspects/co-conspirators, and viewed by the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence as traitorous liabilities whose lives were expendable. They were friggin' scared when approached by the FBI."? What RS has said they fear for their lives from Trump and the Russians? That's pretty far out if it's personal speculation. Horowitz has said in interviews since the report came out that political bias against Trump has not been ruled out (contrary to some reports), and that the size of the mistakes by the FBI makes it a legitimate question despite the lack of documentary evidence. The two explanations he has said are possible are gross FBI negligence or political bias. As that's on record, I think it would be preferable as an explanation to a surmised death plot by the Trump campaign and/or the Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanusAurelius (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

SeanusAurelius, as I mentioned above, don't get hung up on "my words". To satisfy your curiosity, I will explain. Your edit summary mentioned "FBI staff fearing for their lives from Trump and the Russians". I am not referring to them, but to Carter Page and Sergei Millian, who were both unwitting sources for the dossier and who both inadvertently "spilled the beans" and then were interviewed by the FBI. That can't be pleasant. Especially Millian had many Trump campaign and Kremlin contacts, and thus had an insider's POV from both fronts, and he carelessly exposed both to jeopardy by retelling what he had heard or discussed with them. They had reason to believe that Putin and Trump would be unhappy about that, and they had reason to fear prosecution in the United States. Putin is known to kill such sources, and we know that when Trump complained about Jamal Khashoggi, MBS took care of him.(See clarification in next comment.) Would Putin do the same if Trump complained about a source or journalist? That's all I was talking about. It's my speculation based on what we do know, nothing more.

Moving on. You mention "two explanations he has said are possible are gross FBI negligence or political bias." Yes, they too are on record, just as what's above, and we will certainly deal with them and mention them in the article, but let's focus in this thread about my proposition above. What do you think of it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the words "we know that when Trump complained about Jamal Khashoggi, MBS took care of him" could be understood to imply that Trump ordered a hit on Khashoggi. That is not correct. I don't know of any direct evidence of such an occurrence. The thread on my talk page goes into more detail, with many sources, about the relationships between Trump, Kushner, MBS, and their critics. The closest allegation I know of is the request by Joaquin Castro for an investigation of whether Kushner delivered "a hit list, an enemies list" to MBS, and whether that could have been related to Khashoggi's death. I don't know of a RS confirmation of that allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This WP article isn't about the IG. It's about the dossier. Its a secondary source for the topic of the article. SeanusAurelius (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good point. It is only the parts of the IG report which relate to the dossier that we need here, so I have gone ahead and included the above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to start adding the IG report contents as befits a reliable secondary source

There has been a discussion in the two most recent threads on this talk page re: whether the Horowitz report is a secondary source, or whether it is a primary source as it has been treated by editors in this article so far. The result of those discussions is that 1) No one has offered any rationale based on WP:OR or WP:RS for why the Horowitz report matches the criteria that define a primary source, but 2) a clear rationale based on WP:OR or WP:RS has been offered for why it matches the criteria that define a secondary source.

The rationale for using it is based on A and B:

A) As it is a document by an author one step removed from the original events surrounding the Steele Dossier, contains that author's own thinking about the events, is based on primary documents, and contains extensive amounts of evaluative and analytic content, it is a secondary source.

B)As Horowitz has a long established record of impartiality, is treated by RS and even most partisan sources on both sides of the political spectrum as reliable, has an extensive professional structure to ensure reliability, and is subject to extremely high levels of scrutiny, it is a reliable source.

Unless any reasonable objections to A or B based on WP:OR or WP:RS or other WP guides are raised, then I propose to start adding its content extensively. Secondary to this proposal, I propose an approach whereby: Where the IG report has brought to light something new, it should be cited as fact like any other RS, and where it disputes existing article sources, that contrast will be mentioned: "Reports in (RS name) said so-and-so but the IG found such-and-such".

SeanusAurelius (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• The IG Report is a report of an investigation written by people close to the investigation. It is a primary source regarding the mechanics and findings of the investigation. It would be dangerous for WP editors to cherry-pick, analyze, or draw conclusions from a 400 page report. We leave that up to reliable secondary sources. Fortunately, there are a huge number of such in this case, obviating any need to use a primary source. O3000 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"The IG Report is a report of an investigation written by people close to the investigation"

Yes if by investigation you mean the IG review, no if you mean the FBI Trump-Russia investigation. The whole point of the position of IG is that it is a step removed from any FBI operation, remember. If this WP article was actually about the IG report, that would make it a primary source. It's not though. In an article on the Steele dossier, it's a secondary source. Horowitz was not close to the Steele dossier and was called in to review/analyse/evaluate it and other relevant primary sources. SeanusAurelius (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• SeanusAurelius, your intent of "adding its content extensively" is very risky and certainly controversial on this DS sanctioned article, so please discuss proposed content on this talk page first. This is exactly the type of situation where "being bold" is not recommended. You want your content to be a consensus version which all editors will protect, thus ensuring it will stand the test of time. We will be happy to help you achieve that goal.

That's also why I made the proposition above. I am usually bold in my edits here, but I bring anything controversial here first. Please follow that same procedure.

As a primary source, only uncontroversial facts from the IG report can be cited. Anything that smacks of OR will just get deleted. There is no point in going there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a secondary source with respect to the Steele Dossier, you haven't provided any rationale why it would be a primary dossier, and waving your primary source decree wand is not sufficient. You need to engage with the content from WP:RS / WP:OR or other guides. I've engaged with you extensively on this now, you're sidestepping the WP guidelines provided. There's a legitimate point in what you're saying in that we don't want to cherry pick it, but we need to resolve the much larger issue of whether its a primary or secondary source to see what the baseline expectation of how much of it should be included is first. SeanusAurelius (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a complete non-starter. Take it to RSN if you wish, and then there will be a whole new group of editors telling you it's a non-starter. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires all reliable secondary sources to be included. Two other experienced editors have agreed that it is a secondary source, and I've provided a rationale. What none of the editors opposing this have done is provide a rationale based on the WP definitions of what is a primary and what is a secondary source to show it's not a secondary source. SeanusAurelius (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV requires all reliable secondary sources to be included." That's ridiculous. - MrX 🖋 16:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a freakin' primary source. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That would be another assertion with no basis at all. Have you read the quotes from WP:OR / WP:RS supplied? The IG report is written by an author one step removed from the Steele dossier containing the thoughts of that author and is primarily analytic and evaluative and based on primary sources. It's not a freakin' primary source with regards to the Steele Dossier. SeanusAurelius (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

For our purpose it is a primary source and it should be avoided. There are amble secondary sources that will have gleaned the important information from the report. - MrX 🖋 14:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is a secondary source because it is an evaluation of primary sources. See WP:Primary sources - the definition that is cited follows: U of Maryland Libraries

Secondary sources are less easily defined than primary sources. Generally, they are accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. They are interpretations and evaluations of primary sources. Secondary sources are not evidence, but rather commentary on and discussion of evidence. However, what some define as a secondary source, others define as a tertiary source. Context is everything.

Mueller provided his findings about primary sources presented in his investigation of primary sources. It is his evaluation that we're providing, not our own evaluation - definitely NOT OR. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

We are not talking about the Mueller Report, but the same principle applies to it. We have no way of deciding what weight to give the assertions in the IG report or Mueller Report without letting secondary RS do that for us, and then we use them. We don't cherry-pick what we think should be used. The rules for primary sources do allow us to cite them for uncontroversial facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a secondary source relative to the dossier, but it is a primary source relative to the IG. Editors should not be selecting information directly from it without the benefit of analysis from WP:INDEPENDENT sources. - MrX 🖋 15:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree: the IG report can be used as a secondary RS about the Steele dossier (the subject matter of this article), and as a primary source for its findings regarding the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and behaviour of FBI personnel. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That's how I'm treating it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report

These are articles by subject matter experts. They analyze the IG FISA Report.

• Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report
• The Crossfire Hurricane Report's Inconvenient Findings
• Further Thoughts on the Crossfire Hurricane Report

SeanusAurelius, I suggest you read these analytical articles, as they are unquestionably secondary sources and they often quote from the IG report. The references are already formatted and easily used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It is only the parts of the IG report which relate to the dossier that we need here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Durham broke his silence and released a rebuttal to the IG Report - “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened.” - per the NYTimes article. That same article also points to other events that are under investigation by Durham. And there is also this CNN article which speaks to the NYTimes article: Durham is interested in what Brennan told other officials -- including former FBI Director James Comey -- about his and the CIA's views of the infamous dossier compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele of salacious allegations about Donald Trump, Trump associates and Russia, according to the newspaper. Maybe we should add a section titled Durham investigation and list the concerns as was done for the allegations in this article, especially now that CNN referred to it as "the infamous dossier". I'm sure our readers expect to be kept apprised. It appears that the media may have turned a new page; one that is more pragmatic and factual than enigmatic and presumptuous with a guilty until proven innocent mindset. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Closed as "keep".
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Manafort Mug Shot.jpg Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Closed as "keep". -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)