Talk:Steele dossier

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)

The IG report is work product from investigations, and thus a primary source. It doesn't have many of the necessary elements of a reliable secondary source. --loupgarous (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Which is why we are only allowed to use it for straight facts, not interpretations (of the type we would find in secondary sources). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:53, 21 February 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)

Yes, Trump, Barr, Durham, and Putin all dispute some of the findings in the Inspector General's report, which aligns with the narrative painted by other, bi-partisan, investigations and RS. We're looking at two opposing sides in an ongoing criminal investigation, with Durham's investigation described as "a cover-up to protect Trump".

I agree that this deserves some mention in the "Conspiracy theories" section. It's part of their Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal, which is part of the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, often described by RS as a cover-up of the proven co-operation between the Trump campaign and the Russians in their election interference. Note I did not write "conspiracy". A formal written or oral "conspiracy" remains unproven, while the collusion/co-operation is proven. What was actually done, as opposed to what was agreed, is the most important.

Does anyone have any proposed wording based on RS, something that does not take things out of context to push these conspiracy theories? We just need to document them, not give credence to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, see what NBC published about the IG finding no evidence of bias but that "he found no satisfactory alternative explanation when it came to the lies and omissions that led a court to wrongly authorize spying on Page, who was not charged with a crime." Fact-based information has been published in RS that contradicts earlier reports of a "conspiracy theory" and taxes the credibility of Schiff and others who (according to NBC) believed the opposite was true and for years "insisted that the FBI did not rely to a great extent on an opposition research dossier compiled by a former British spy". We now know the dossier played a key role in obtaining at least 2 of the warrants, so hopefully we can all agree that the former arguments used to exclude substantial opposing views are no longer valid. Several RS have published facts that contradict earlier reporting, and serves to validate the concerns I and other editors have expressed about this article's noncompliance with RECENTISM, NPOV and V. It's length and complexity have led to a measure of inaccuracy or perhaps misinterpretation and that is what motivated me to invite the collaboration of BD2412. If we could at least get the lead fixed it would be a welcome improvement. Following are a few more corroborating RS relating to the FISA fiasco: CNN, Fox News, CBS. More information is forthcoming, albeit at a much slower pace, and why I appreciate WP's no deadline MO. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but after the advent of the IG report, I have added and revised content to bring us up to date, and I'm certain I haven't gotten it all. I got a notification that you did appreciate the last addition, but I have added and revised a lot of other content.

If there is specific wording or content you are still concerned about, or you feel a piece of information is lacking, please let me know. We want to keep the history, but also show how new information has changed what we know. That's how it works here. All of our 6 million articles are in a perpetual state of imperfection, and they sometimes need updating. More eyes are appreciated, and I do appreciate hearing your views. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

See the last sentence of the lead. I started that content on December 13. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:45, 24 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)

Article size

This article: prose size (text only): 120 kB (19377 words) "readable prose size" - see WP:TOOBIG. I don't think it needs to be spun-off since we're already dealing with TMI and have other articles that make its contents redundant. What I think is needed here is a substantial reduction in the editorializing/politicization, speculation, trivia, debunked material and redundant information, and include only factual, encyclopedic info; IOW, lose the excessive detail. When Durham and Barr complete their investigations, we will either have more to add or more to remove but either way, condensing this article will make it far more reader-friendly. I would appreciate BD2412 stopping by to take a look at what we're dealing with and maybe provide some input since he did such a good job collaborating on Matthew Whitaker, helping to make it more reader friendly and compliant with WP:PAGs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'll be glad to have a look in a week or so. I have a lot of projects on my plate just at the moment. BD2412 T 01:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Atsme and BD2412, I have investigated this matter and found an area where we can seriously reduce the size. That is the "Investigations using or referencing the dossier" section. The articles about those investigations now do a pretty good job of mentioning their relationship to the dossier, so I'm going to go ahead and reduce the whole section and its subsections to a very short section with links to the appropriate articles. I hope that is satisfactory. We can always change it if it doesn't work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Done All that is gone and replaced with this section: #Subject of investigations and conspiracy theories. That removed 42,305 bytes. Now it's "Prose size (text only): 102 kB (16411 words) "readable prose size", which is a notable reduction in size. We'll let the other articles deal with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think a number of large components could be spun out into separate articles, e.g., History of the Steele dossier, Allegations of the Steele dossier, and/or Reactions to the Steele dossier. The page is still be far too large even with the investigations section substantially reduced. BD2412 T 01:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The "Allegations" section is the most important because it IS the dossier:

"Note: - if this article is kept, then the main article, Trump-Russia dossier, should be deleted as it is only notable because of the allegations that comprise its context...." (This comment by Atsme, from 13:03, 23 January 2018, was added here on 2/9/2020. My response at the time.)

The original merge of that content into this article was absolutely necessary and done with a community consensus decision that should not be undone. I'll consider the others. Let me think about it. I would agree that the "Reactions..." section is a possible candidate, and I'll look at it.

For a subject of this importance, both in its historical significance, controversiality, and myriad connections with so many other important investigations, and enormous coverage by literally every RS, its large size is understandable, and I think we should let its coverage in RS be the deciding factor for size, not subjective editorial preferences. Due weight is determined by RS coverage, not by editors' preferences. Many other less important articles are far larger. (I know that's an otherthings argument, but it's still something to consider.) This isn't a "list" article. We don't break up articles with a red thread running through them unless forced to do so.

We are still far from a size which causes problems with the Wikimedia limits. I can easily read and edit this article on my cellphone, which is one of the factors which would cause us to reduce the size of any article. So I'm really reticent to reduce the size without other very good grounds.

Where there is a natural and logical reason, we could still consider how to do it, but there must be other compelling grounds, and size is no longer (if it ever really was) such a reason.

We need to be cautious and stop this acceleration down a deletionist slippery slope that mostly serves to satisfy political and conspiracy theory agendas not in harmony with our policies. The "size" argument is sometimes legitimate, but it is often a conveniently-misused excuse, and that concerns me. That is the history of deletionist attempts at this article, so excuse me for being sensitive when I see the resurrection of such rejected attempts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Rupert Allason conclusion “strong possibility all Steele’s material fabricated”

I really don’t want to get into the aggro which comes with editing this article, however could some more robust editors add from this Sunday Times article please- unfortunately behind a paywall, however no doubt it will ... er ... leak. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-mi6-spy-fabricated-dossier-on-trump-and-prostitutes-wz2hr8zz7 Regards, Springnuts (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Springnuts, we'd need to see what's behind the paywall. Based on paragraph 2, "Nigel West has revealed he was hired by a US Republican law firm to assess the dossier in 2017 and concluded that large parts of it were faked." (emphasis mine), color me skeptical that this is anything more than a partisan attempt to discredit the dossier that doesn't actually discredit the dossier. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The ideas that the dossier is a hoax, fake, falsified, invented, political spin, etc. are pure partisan conspiracy theory spin, without any evidence. Those who take Fox News seriously would believe Allason.

All intelligence agencies (but Russian) consider it a serious work that they have taken seriously. Yes, there are reservations, as there should be, that harmonize with Steele's own recognition that the dossier is initially largely unconfirmed (with much later confirmed) raw intelligence, but he did a serious job and followed all the rules which govern the way British agents prepare such raw intelligence reports. They know it's not all absolute truth, and therefore they collect what sources say, write up dossiers, and then investigate it. This was never intended for public consumption, especially before investigation, and Steele has always been upset it was published "as is". His findings, together with a mountain of other intelligence information, justified extreme suspicion of the Trump campaign, and investigations have only confirmed the justified nature of such suspicions.

The possibility that parts of it could even be Russian disinformation is not an unserious consideration, but so far there is no serious evidence that it actually happened. We do mention these things in the article because actual RS have dealt with it. If we get evidence that it happened, we'll certainly include it.

I would not be surprised if Allason's ideas are being spread within the hermetically-sealed right-wing information bubble right now and welcomed by Trump supporters as some type of amazing revelation, rather than agenda-driven speculation and spin.

If anyone other than Trump and conspiracy theorists take Allason seriously, let us see the RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just for the sake of interest, an unreliable source has now picked up the story, with the reaction from Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• As expected, Sputnik, a Russian propaganda source, has also picked up the story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The Times is generally considered a reliable source, however they do not seem to be following the story up. Springnuts (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are. For such a serious BLP allegation against Steele, we would need "a multitude of reliable published sources", per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Nigel West has revealed he was hired by a US Republican law firm to assess the dossier in 2017 and concluded that large parts of it were faked." Nigel West is the nom de plume of Rupert Allason, a former Conservative MP. So, a right-wing politician was paid by Republicans to conclude that the Steele dossier was faked, and did so, but almost nobody outside Russia thought it worth talking about. I think that's all we need to know, right? Guy (help!) 11:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Subtle POV

Having just come here tonight for the first time, I want to say I am unhappy with this article. I'm well aware that many an editor has worked long and hard on this, and I'm sure there have been many compromises along the way, but I simply don't feel this article fairly represents what is known. And let me just say this, before I illustrate my points: I am no fan of Trump. I didn't vote for him and if this was not Wikipedia, I would share my very unfavorable opinions on him. But my concern here is for Wikipedia's standard of quality in its articles, and I think this falls well short of my expectations.

Can I point to untruths in the article? No. Wikipedia works far too well for false information to remain long, especially in an important article like this one. But it is possible for intelligent people to sometimes slant an article, even as they carefully employ verified facts. Two things stand out to me, one of which I think is easily correctable. The other I fear is something I don't know how to touch without causing an edit war, so vested are people in what they have crafted here.

The first problem--the easy to correct one--is the way that the allegations are laid out. In section 3 we have a list of the allegations made in the dossier, which are laid out in 14 subsections. As a description of the contents of the dossier, they are unobjectionable. But given that the intro section states that "some allegations have been corroborated", the person perusing this section is left thinking, as he reads each item in the litany, "this might be true". Only if the reader decides to move on to Sections 4 and 5 (and I never assume that the casual reader actually reads an entire article) will he begin to get into the question of veracity.

My proposed solution is fairly simple and simply fair. The content for Sections 3 and 4 should be combined into one section. Thus, a subsection would detail an allegation in the Steele Dossier, and in that same subsection there would be a discussion of whether that particular allegation had been corroborated, remained uncorroborated, or had been shown to be false. The reader will thus get a fuller perspective on each individual allegation before moving on to the second one.

This is important because not all the allegations are of equal severity. Saying Putin favored Trump, which is well verified, is very different than alleging that Trump worked hand-in-glove with Russia to get elected. To include both in a list of "some corroborated, some not" without specifying which is which is, in my most humble opinion, a way of placing both types of accusations on the same level of credibility.

I indicated that I had another issue to address. But I shan't go there until I see the reaction to this suggestion, which to my mind, should hardly be controversial. Unschool 03:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Unschool, thank you for so sincerely expressing your valid concerns. I have long held similar feelings, but discussions a long time ago left me rather discouraged about such an attempt. It might involve SYNTH violations or risk other problems, but I'm not rejecting the idea. Let me dig deep and see if I can revive my old thinking about this, and see if there is a good way to do it. This is an important step and must be done carefully, so I don't want to rush into it. BLP allegations must always be handled with kid gloves. So please be patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to approach this cautiously. I don't know how long ago these concerns of yours arose, but perhaps enough time has passed to allow calm attitudes to prevail. Unschool 22:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, as a preliminary step, I have sought to move a large part of the introduction in the Allegations section to a more appropriate section. As it was, the short summary about verification status, as well as the denials, was buried among all the rest. Now it's easier to find and read. I have always tried to tweak the language to make things clearer.

As far as taking those 14 allegations and dealing with their verification status, the 14 in the Allegations section do not always parallel the 14 in the Verification section, so we'll need to brainstorm. (It's totally by chance that there are 14 bullet points in each section.) Some are pretty straightforward, but others are not, and that's largely because the RS don't do it in a cut-and-dried way. They blend it together.

I'm not sure if this is allowed, but I'm considering placing a link in the introduction of the Allegations section for those who'd like to jump directly down to the verification section. That would also serve as an alert that it exists, and lessens the likelihood that they'll miss it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at the changes you've made to the article. I very much appreciate your efforts, but have my doubts as to whether the way it is formatted will survive the gaze of other editors. I think it's a bit "jerky" to read, which is a result of your noble efforts to reduce the POV. I personally do not have the time to invest in this myself, and feel bad to have opened up a can of worms that I can't eat. I'll try to look in on this from time to time. Unschool 22:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you would discuss this on my talk page, where the enviroment is calmer. I really want your POV on this. None of us can adequately see things from all other POV, so it's really valuable when someone like you weighs in. I'd especially like to hear your views on the "subtle POV". -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Awkward wording

An edit tried to fix what was apparently seen as less-than-ideal wording, but I'm not sure it's any better, so let's try to find even better wording. Bolding added to the changed words:

Original

• ... that Trump was susceptible to blackmail due to paying bribes and the existence of "enough embarrassing material" due to engagement in "perverted sexual acts" and "unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years"...

Revision

• ... that Trump was susceptible to blackmail by paying bribes and by the existence of "enough embarrassing material" from engagement in "perverted sexual acts" and "unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years"...

BullRangifer (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a good suggestion I received by email:

• That Trump was vulnerable to blackmail from Russian authorities for paying bribes and engaging in unorthodox and embarrassing sexual behavior over the years.

BullRangifer (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have installed that version. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Corroboration

Last week I changed a sentence in the lead from "Some allegations have been corroborated, while others remain unverified" to the more accurate "Some allegations have been corroborated, however most of the allegations contained in the dossier remain unverified."(two RS back this fact up, but there are more) Since the large majority of the dossier has still (as of Feb 2020) not been corroborated, the text in the lead should be more precise. For now I'm just tweaking sentence to be in line with what RS currently say about the dossier. Circulair (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Circulair, "allegations" vs "aspects"....? There are numerous RS we already use (including the CNN source you just added) which can back both wordings, but does it really make a difference? Aspects is very vague, whereas most discussion is about the allegations.

I see you also address your previous edits, which were reverted by User:Objective3000, but let's finish this first. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Circulair. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Circulair: I see you again want to change that wording to "aspects", rather than allegations. Can you explain why? Most sources speak of the allegations. -- Valjean (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

"Trump-Russia dossier was valid"

Interesting defense. The Times source is behind a paywall, and this is just a letter to the editor, but posting here for the record. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. Letter to the editor are not reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

That's what I mean. I'm not proposing to include it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Orbis Business Intelligence solicited and paid a foreign ex-government agent to produce a dossier of unverified accusations against an American Presidential candidate. I don't put stock in anything they have to say. Of course their line would be the material they paid for was correct. They turned a nothing burger into one of the biggest stories in political history. It's always been a nothing burger. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to pop your bubble, but "the dossier's main finding, that Russia tried to prop up Trump over Clinton, was confirmed by" the ODNI assessment. ABC News stated that "some of the dossier's broad implications—particularly that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an operation to boost Trump and sow discord within the U.S. and abroad—now ring true." James Comey told the Office of the Inspector General that "in his view, the "heart of the [Steele] reporting was that there's a massive Russian effort to influence the American election and weaponize stolen information." Comey said he believed those themes from the Steele reporting were "entirely consistent with information developed by the [USIC] wholly separate and apart from the [Steele] reporting", as well as consistent with what "our eyes and ears could also see"."

That's hardly a "nothing burger". Many of its allegations have proven true, while many others remain unverified, which does not equal untrue. While Trump's obstruction of evidence prevented Mueller from confirming the dossier allegation of a "conspiracy" (so it remains unverified), the Mueller report did provide plenty of evidence of the alleged "co-operation" between the Trump campaign and Russians. That is proven.

"Mueller and Schiff detail Trump's collusion with Russia and subsequent efforts to cover it up. Schiff: Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference? MUELLER: Yes. SCHIFF: And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up? MUELLER: Yes." That's hardly a "nothing burger". That is proven.

The Trump campaign did invite, welcome, and facilitate the Russian interference and lied repeatedly about all their secret contacts with Russians. That's hardly a "nothing burger". That is proven.

It's only a "nothing burger" if one cares not that Trump did not oppose, but still provides cover for Putin and Russia by denying the military cyberwarfare attack by an enemy nation on the United States that was designed to help him win. That is proven.

You do know what such failure to condemn, but instead adhering to the enemy and giving them aid and comfort during their G.R.U. military attack, is called? Many experts consider it treasonous. Failure to resist, but instead welcome, such an attack is not a "nothing burger", and all efforts to actually expose and resist such an attack, and that's what Steele was doing, are acts of patriotism. Steele deserves a Medal of Freedom award, but now that award is forever tarnished by its association with Limbaugh, who actually defends Trump's actions. It should be retired and not used again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t really care what Comey thought or believed. I care about facts. And I see them this way: a few Russian trolls making memes online were certainly less influential than Mr Steele’s (also a foreign agent) dossier. Trump didn’t win the election because of Russian interference. Failure to understand that will probably have the same result this year.

They tried to run out the same playbook again already, but those reports were a bit over emphasized. Honestly, who cares what Russia wants? Trump’s been tougher on them than Obama was, and certainly Clinton would have been. Russia wants to sow discord in the USA, which is exactly what things like the Steele dossier accomplished, according to experts like Dr Fiona Hill. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"A few Russian trolls"? Where have you been? That's a tiny smidgen of what happened, but we're getting off into not-a-forum territory. Have a nice day. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Assange fake news

Assange has repeatedly denied the allegations that the Kremlin was involved in the leaks and so it cannot be "IT" for Trump. That should be mentioned there. On the other hand Seth Rich was mentioned many times. Also this is not a quid pro quo as Trump will not gain anything from such a deal; unless of course there was a collusion but that really was some piece of garbage. I mean a Tower and Global Magnitskey Act? Really? Ah, yeah, I forgot pee pee tape. 2A00:1370:812C:1791:9487:26F:610E:A55E (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that deny his lawyers made this offer?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Is there some content in this article that should be revised? -- Valjean (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You know perfectly what I am implying here. See @Wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1230228988238401536 https://archive.md/SXsiO https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1203750338840297472?s=20 2A00:1370:812C:1791:49CE:62D9:6D84:6B46 (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an edit you wish to make If not this serves no purpose?Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I still can't figure out what you're getting at. Spell it out more clearly, suggest some wording to be included, and the RS to use. We can't use the Twitter links, and the second source was blocked as dangerous by my browser. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

What does "so it cannot be "IT" for Trump" mean? -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

What does "this" refer to in this quote: "Also this is not a quid pro quo"?

What does "a deal" refer to in this quote: "as Trump will not gain anything from such a deal"? -- Valjean (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I suggest removing your browser then, as is total garbage. Will copy paste from there (Dana Rohrabacher):

My Meeting with Julian Assange

​There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter:

At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country. I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange. At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him. At no time did I offer a deal made by the President, nor did I say I was representing the President. Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration.

Even though I wasn't successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time. Finally, we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich. 2A00:1370:812C:4261:157:7425:E76C:698 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

So Rohrabacher is denying what Assange's lawyers said in court? (Do you really believe that? It sounds like he's covering his ass because he got caught, but that's just my opinion.) What is your source for this denial? You do know that Assange then did what is alleged, right? Whether the narrative about Rohrabacher's message from Trump is true or not, Assange's behavior was exactly the same as if it did happen, and Assange's lawyers say that this was why Assange denied that the Russians were involved.

BTW, it's still difficult for us to understand your Russian English. It's too imprecise to understand clearly. -- Valjean (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian disinformation

There are now reports coming out that the Steel Dossier likely contained Russian disinformation, and that the FBI was aware of this. How should we include this into the article? CBS and WSJ, albeit an opinion piece from a US Senator. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, we definitely shouldn't use an op-ed from Ron Johnson except for citing uncontroversial facts. The CBS report could be worth including somehow. I had seen over the weekend that the Michael Cohen / Prague bit was disinformation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree re: the op-Ed but it does provide some useful context. I haven’t seen yet which bits the FBI thought were disinformation, but hopefully we can clarify. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is what I saw and I don't know if it's strong enough to go on. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

All evidence collected by law enforcement and especially intelligence agencies will contain misinformation and disinformation. The significant disinformation in this case takes the form of insinuations by partisan politicians. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

We have already covered this, but not with the unreliable source angle we're seeing now. This is about "Person 1" (Sergei Millian), who was very close to the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, who was an unwitting witness. He spoke in confidence to another person, who then told Steele about the conversation(s). Later, when investigations of the dossier allegations and its sources came to light, he tried to cover his ass by denying he was a source for the dossier, that he didn't say such things, and/or that his words were twisted. That is covered in this article, and has been for some time. The FBI deemed these attempts to cover his ass as less than honest. We cover it in this section: Steele dossier#Discrepancies between sources and their allegations: "The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed that this key source "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the election reporting following its release to the public".[31]"

Unwitting witnesses tend to be telling the truth because they don't realize their words might be heard by others. Later attempts to "minimize his/her role" are obviously untrustworthy, but the mostly unreliable sources which are now reporting this don't understand (or care about) this issue, and their twist on it is not based on the information above from the Inspector General's Report. These would be inconvenient facts for them.

Keep in mind that charges of "disinformation" are coming from an unreliable source who has good reason to cast the dossier in a bad light. His words are themselves the disinformation. -- Valjean (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This RS covers the footnotes matters quite nicely.

"The new information in the two footnotes does not support the senators’ initial claim that the footnotes confirm the existence of a Russian operation to disrupt the FBI’s investigation. The footnotes only establish that the FBI received certain reports. The veracity of the information also remains unconfirmed. Many sources are redacted, making the reports difficult to evaluate. And, while it may be significant that the FBI received reports from the intelligence community, the footnotes do not suggest that the intelligence community endorsed the theory that the Steele dossier was part of a Russian campaign."

Valjean (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to put everything from new declassification here

As you know FISC info was finally declassified. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation Adam Schiff lied about FISA -- now we know that for sure as we have declassified application TOP SECRET//NOFORN//FISA. That includes simply lying about not paying Steele 95000 $USD from outright copy pasting (sic!) from Steele dossier. That is the end. And I am not talking about Source 3 (Jeffrey Wiseman) and Source 2 with George Popadopulus. You Liberals lost. 91.76.18.15 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Care to proved the quote where they say anyone lied?Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "the Source #1 is a Foreign Government Third Party Equity and has been an FBI source since in or about October 2013. Source #1 has been compensated approximately $95,000 by the FBI. As discussed below in footnote 19, in or about October 2016, the FBI suspended its relationship with Source #1 due to Source #1's unauthorized disclosure of information to the press." Page 17 of renewal one, see the link above. And see Schiff memo of course. 91.76.18.15 (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I see no use of the name Steele, it may be him, but do we have this as a positive or just speculation?Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You are kidding right? There is, thanks god, only one dossier in this story that then undergo "unauthorized disclosure of information to the press". Well, if not considere phone metadata in Shiff report, but that was in the next season of this. 91.76.18.15 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

OK lets assume is Steele, what does this tell us about the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

We already mention that Steele has been a paid informant for the FBI: "Prior to his work on the dossier, Steele had been a paid informant for the FBI for information unrelated to the Russia investigation. There is no evidence he was actually paid by the FBI for his work on the dossier, although that was planned at one point in time.

It would really help if you provided us the source and told us that you were quoting from p. 202 of the IG Report. -- Valjean (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

As described above, we already cover some of the information that is now revealed in the footnotes.

I have been observing (I have hundreds of Google Alerts) this trend of reporting about the footnote declassification. So far it's been spread all over by unreliable sources as if it's some big revelation (those of us who have followed this closely are not surprised and have long had suspicions which are now confirmed, IOW it's a molehill being blown up into a mountain for political purposes), and finally, only two (wow!) RS mention it. We have long since touched on it in the article, so there is no reason to make radical changes....yet. Increased coverage by RS may require we cover the subject better. Time will tell.

Do you have some piece of information from those footnotes which we should include? What RS would we use to justify inclusion.? -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

footnotes? This is old news. I am talking about release of FISA applications and Crossfire Typhoon (Popadopuls) two transcripts with 2 CHS. I believe the only thing we could do is fully debunk the Schiff memo (as here he lied about full of lies FISA applications). But because those FISA applications are utter garbage and FISC banned DOJ and FBI officials who participated in this (see FISC talk page), I do not think it would be correct to use applications as a source... Or maybe we can... But we can still prove that Schiff lied about the applications' contents. Just look into this: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/redacted_minority_memo_2.24.18.pdf This is just... 91.76.18.15 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In 2019 the Justice Department determined the last two of four FISA warrants to surveil Page were invalid. We already document that at the Carter Page article, as it isn't relevant to this article.

You need to use secondary, not primary sources. Pointing to a document isn't helpful. We need to know the exact wordings upon which you base your statements. That's why we are having a hard time figuring out what you want done. -- Valjean (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A you said CORRECTLY the secondary sources are there. But there are also sources that are trying to say the opposite. That is why we need primary sources that WE NOW (!) have. 91.76.18.15 (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We are not allowed to use primary sources for interpretation or controversial matters. That's considered cherry-picking and violates original research. We need secondary RS to help us determine what that content from primary sources means and whether it has due weight for inclusion. We can use primary sources carefully for simple and uncontroversial facts that deserve mentioning (the "Hurricane Typhoon" detail could be used in the George Papadopoulos article). Right now many unreliable sources are wildly spinning content, and you are violating WP:BLP by claiming Schiff lied. You must produce reliable secondary sources which actually state that he lied. Your interpretation of primary sources isn't enough for you to make such a claim here. -- Valjean (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait a second, secondary sources (a big amount of them) said that Schiff lied... So I am not violating BLP. I am just saying that we are now able to clarify (like with Typhoon) the secondary sources! Add quotes. And maybe add some facts like about 95000$, no? It is just one fact. 2A00:1370:812C:4261:E122:F951:2B1F:F423 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Who says Schiff lied? What reliable source says that? A Republican or Judicial Watch making partisan attacks does not suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Lied at all or in this particular case? 2A00:1370:812C:4261:E4F4:C81C:50D0:36E9 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case. What did Schiff say about the Steele dossier that was not factual? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Steele dossier? What? He lied in FISA memo. Not about Steele dossier but about Steele himself and its use in FISA application (was actually used and was very important to establish probable cause, that is why FISC banned those FBI and DOJ officials). 2A00:1370:812C:4261:157:7425:E76C:698 (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We already cover this in the article. The first two FISA warrants were later deemed invalid, but not the last two. Carter Page had already said too many incriminating things that justified him being surveilled. -- Valjean (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Clarify Emin Agalarov point of view; occurrences in pop culture

As you may know Emin is a pop singer. Much more popular than Olga Buzova and other "crazy" new singers. And he indeed filmed a clip about Steele dossier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cs4tKdiiI4 , there is also an interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zQU_jI4Mek . I thing this is notable as under "new" allegations that Russia smeared both Trump and Clinton to clarify his point of view. 91.76.18.15 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

When RS notice it it might (and it is a very big might) be, until RS give a damn neither do we.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an interview though. It is not Perennial source if that is what you are talking about.91.76.18.15 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor am I sure its an RS either. We need ore than this to include the opinions of just another pop star.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, this Emin is who started all this, he is in THIS article. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gy3pn9/emin-agalarov-tells-all-about-that-infamous-meeting-with-don-jr-at-trump-tower https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/07/10/emin-agalarov-vice-news-interview/773296002/ 91.76.18.15 (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, PS is also there https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/emin-agalarov-cnn-interview-analysis/index.html Haha, lol. 91.76.18.15 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

OK we now have enough RS to say its been noticed, why is is relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Vice News is borderline acceptable, so, depending on whether it is or is not a sensitive BLP matter, we may or may not be able to use it. Sensitive matters require several RS.

So what exactly is there in that one video from Vice News and in the other URLs you provide that we should mention? Be specific. -- Valjean (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so why Russian collusion even started? Because of two things 1) Trump Tower Moscow, 2) Magnitskey (Global) Act -- both of things started because of Emin and his father, Trump family friends. So I think it is at least important to mention in the "Culture" section his song clip that makes that part of Steele dossier look rediculous, and that Emin "denies making an offer, or being aware of any offer, to send prostitutes to Trump’s hotel room" and etc about that laywer Natalia Veselnitskaya in the main section. 2A00:1370:812C:4261:E122:F951:2B1F:F423 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you even read what RS say about the role of the Agalarovs? Search the article for the word "Agalarov". We base our content on RS and this isn't about the Agalarovs, but about the dossier. If and when they played a role in the allegations made in the dossier (and they did), then that is possible content. We have some already, but do we need to mention more in this article? -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"played a role in the allegations made in the dossier (and they did)" "this isn't about the Agalarovs" Do not you see strange logic here? IMHO, Agalarovs are most important in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:812C:4261:157:7425:E76C:698 (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

So what did they have to do with the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Their role is already mentioned. What else should be covered that has to do with the dossier? -- Valjean (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

ODNI released 53 Schiff transcripts

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/features/2753-53-hpsci-transcripts and so did HPSCI (57 transcripts) https://intelligence.house.gov/russiainvestigation/ 91.76.22.132 (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

What relevance do these primary sources have to the subject here? -- Valjean (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keith Schiller: For the record, this interrogation/interview with Schiller contains quite a bit about the Moscow/Ritz-Carlton Hotel matter, including the flight to Moscow, timing, meetings, Agalarovs, etc. It also discusses this Daily Caller article (which mentions Politico), the dossier, and Schiller telling McGahn and Preibus about the offer of five prostitutes, and that he waited outside Trump's hotel room door maybe 2 minutes, maybe 10 minutes, and then went to his own room for the night. We already cover this stuff pretty well in this article.

The questioners really tried to figure out who might have leaked the information to Politico and the Daily Caller, as the person who made the offer, Schiller, Trump, McGahn, and Preibus were the only ones who knew about the offer. They also broached the possibility that someone in the meeting room (most likely in the hotel) where the offer was made, might have overheard the offer, and there were 7-10 people, both men and women, in that room. -- Valjean (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Marc Elias: Perkins Coie was paid $60,000 per month ($30,000 each from the DNC and Clinton campaign). Elias first heard the name "Christopher Steele" in July 2016. (p. 25, 52, 60) MR. GOWDY: What did you hear first of the nature of his [Steele's] investigative work? MR. Elias: ...I think in early Julyish, late June, early July, mid-July. (p. 28) ELIAS: Glenn Simpson was not retained to do Russia research....not as part of the initial retention. (pp. 37-38) Fusion GPS "were retained predominantly to look into financial issues or litigation issues. MR. SCHIFF: Were you aware that Fusion GPS had done some Russia investigative work for their prior conservative client? ELIAS: I was unaware. (p. 39) at the time Fusion GPS was retained, Elias was "not aware of research that they had done with respect to Russian connections. (pp. 42-43) Elias communicated with Fusion GPS "weekly". (p. 52) "once a week" (p. 77) Elias believed Steele was hired by Fusion GPS "sometime in June". Elias met Steele "once in the fall of 2016" (p. 60) at Perkins Coie. "guess it was late September or early October." a "brief meeting". the only time Elias ever spoke and communicated with Steele (p. 61) Those who accompanied Steele at that brief meeting: Elias, "Peter or Glenn or both", a woman (a younger woman in her 20s (p. 95). Fusion set up the meeting, which lasted 10-15 minutes. (pp. 70-71) -- Valjean (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Face detail, Manafort Mug Shot (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The Act nightclub information

I believe the information about The Act nightclub ought to be removed from the article, as it is false and WP:UNDUE. Neither Chait nor, indeed, the source he cites in his article refer to the club as a "strip club" and it's clear from the latter that the women were wearing at least some clothing. Nor does it say that the performances there included urination or beastiality—it's clear they were "simulated". And the sources make clear there is zero evidence that Trump attended the show described. I'd love to see an explanation of the relevance of the details of a show that Trump may well never have seen—it appears to be there for no purpose other than sensationalism and smear. The obvious implication is that Trump saw the show in question, which is not an established or reported fact. @Valjean: claims there are other RS that corroborate the information in the article—if so, then by all means cite them, because the current source does not. Tambourine60 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"Simulated" should be included. Trump was indeed there per this source. Strip club can be dropped, although it's accurate, and we can use the source's "raunchy" instead. The club was shut down because its acts broke the law. I'll make those fixes now. -- Valjean (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you're insisting it was a strip club (which are to the best of my knowledge, ironically, not allowed on the Vegas Strip). And I didn't say Trump wasn't at the club, just that there's zero evidence he saw anything to do with simulated beastiality or urination. The sources make that crystal clear. Jane Mayer, in The New Yorker, explains it best: "Isikoff and Corn note that… they were unable to determine which skits were performed the night that Trump attended, or even whether Trump paid any attention to what was onstage. Instead, Isikoff and Corn write that Trump’s focus that night was apparently the cementing of a business relationship with one of his companions." I don't think that Wikipedia needs to include that Trump visited a nightclub that at some times featured shows with simulated urination, although there's zero evidence that he saw such a show. And if it's really WP:DUE, then it at least needs to be made clear that there's no evidence he saw the show being described. Also, the fact that you agree there were substantial errors puts the lie to the idea that I was "vandalizing" the page, which is just silly. I carefully explained in my edit what I was doing. Tambourine60 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

References

More issues with article

The more I look, the more dodgy stuff I see in this article. There appear to be three references to the same information:

• The Mueller Report, published on April 18, 2019, contains a footnote that reveals that this information about salacious tapes came as no surprise to Trump. It revealed that Trump already knew the Russians had tapes of his incriminating behavior. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen had received a text from Giorgi Rtskhiladze reporting that he had successfully stopped the "flow of tapes from Russia". Rtskhiladze described them as "compromising tapes of Trump", and Cohen said he then spoke to Trump about the issue.
• Giorgi Rtskhiladze, a Russian businessman who had worked with Cohen on Trump's real estate projects. Rtskhiladze reported that he had successfully stopped the "flow of tapes from Russia". Rtskhiladze described them as "compromising tapes of Trump", and Cohen said he then spoke to Trump about the issue. Rolling Stone reported that "Rtskhiladze's description of the tapes' content tracks with the unverified information included in the Steele dossier."
• A footnote in the Mueller Report describes how Giorgi Rtskhiladze reported that he had successfully stopped the "flow of ... compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group" [owned by Agalarov]. Rolling Stone reported that "Rtskhiladze's description of the tapes' content tracks with the unverified information included in the Steele dossier.''

Yet somehow, nowhere in the article is it mentioned that, per the Rolling Stone article, the Mueller Report also stated: "Rtskhiladze later admitted he had been told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen." Indeed, there is a great deal of reporting on this exact subject that makes it very clear that neither Cohen nor Rtskhiladze believed there were real tapes of Trump in compromising situations. And what of this sentence: "The Mueller Report... revealed that Trump already knew the Russians had tapes of his incriminating behavior." Where, exactly, does the Mueller Report state that? It doesn't, because the Mueller Report never establishes that there were any tapes. Tambourine60 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed [1], thank you. starship.paint (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Tambourine60, I'm not sure exactly what your point is in all that. We can certainly add Rtskhiladze's later denials and attempts to CYA, which make no sense when one views his initial statement to Cohen. He was happy and Cohen was happy that the tapes were stopped. We only have the part of their exchanges reported in the Mueller Report's footnote, but there had obviously been some attempt to track down tapes, and Rtskhiladze was reporting back to Cohen. This was, after all, part of Cohen's job as Trump's fixer. He put out these kinds of fires all the time. Sure, we can include that he LATER denied. (That word should be included, otherwise it's deceptive content.) His actions indicate that he originally thought the tapes were real, or he wouldn't have "stopped" them. To later claim there were no tapes, or they weren't real is obvious dissimulation, but we do document lies here, so go for it.

Cohen had told Trump about the tapes. That's how we know that Trump "already" knew, long before Comey briefed him at Trump Tower about the allegation in the dossier. This is a significant part of the history. Trump had already heard about tapes, real or not. What Comey told him was no surprise. -- Valjean (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You also make an interesting assumption ("Indeed, there is a great deal of reporting on this exact subject that makes it very clear that neither Cohen nor Rtskhiladze believed there were real tapes of Trump in compromising situations.")

Their denials are not proof of what they really "believed". Their actions speak louder than their words. Cohen would naturally try to discover if there actually were any tapes. That was his job. That he might not believe they exist is certainly possible, as he may have never seen them or gotten proof of their existence. But a denial cannot be used to prove that belief. It's just a denial. Apparently Rtskhiladze was helping in that endeavor and reported back that he had successfully "stopped the flow of tapes". If the tapes hadn't existed, then Rtskhiladze was lying to Cohen. So he was either lying to Cohen then, or he was lying to Mueller's investigators later. Maybe you can figure out other possibilities, but those are two that jump out at me from what's been written.

It's an interesting fact that Rtskhiladze never denies that he "stopped the flow of tapes." -- Valjean (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Chait's claim

I removed a bit from what really reads like an opinion piece by Chait, that had been removed and reverted recently. I think the rest of that paragraph Chait has noted how Trump has a history of paying hush money to keep his sexual affairs secret, and that the allegation of prostitutes peeing on the bed where the Obamas slept would also mesh with his "obsessive hatred of Obama that grew out of Trump's humiliation at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner". He writes that "the notion that a display of exotic sex acts lies totally outside the range of behavior Trump would enjoy is quaint and unfounded." ought to be removed too. It adds nothing outside of Chait's opinion, which is UNDUE at the very least. It is not supported with any reliable evidence, only conjecture and speculation. It could also be considered a BLP violation, in that Chait implies that Trump enjoys exotic sex acts (I can't believe I'm actually writing that sentence lol), which is not backed up by any real evidence. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I chopped some. I don't like all those opinions. I also removed some spurious formatting, like for quotes, which are unnecessary and break up the regular organization. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Chait's opinion is not unusual or unique. As we are required to do, it is attributed properly. Mr Ernie, your edit summary mentions it is synthesis. Of course, that's what makes it useful. Editors, not sources, are forbidden from connecting the dots (synthesis), but sources that do that are useful, unlike those which don't do it. They are interesting and provide the color which makes our articles more than a dry recitation of bare facts. His article provides context and touches on a long history of Trump's known behaviors and proclivities, without any BLP violation. Objections to the inclusion of properly-sourced and attributed opinions are not based in policy. -- Valjean (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, sorry that was the wrong word - I was using it somewhat sarcastically to talk about the connection Chait makes. That Trump had gone to a club where less than savory acts had taken place, therefore it is reasonable to assume the pee story is true. That’s not a logical connection I find believable, and is a fallacy. I don’t find Chait’s article to have held up well given what’s since come out, and think we should remove most of it from the page. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't censor properly-sourced and attributed opinions because we don't see them as logical or agree with them. That's an NPOV violating attitude. Inclusion does not violate NPOV. We should include opinions, both for and against. This one is from a subject matter expert. -- Valjean (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We do that all the time per DUE. Why is Chait’s opinion any more relevant than anyone else? Taibbi is a SME regarding Russia but his views are not present here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe because he has lost his credibility by becoming a denier of the fact that the Russians interfered in the election? He has joined Assange's team in that regard, and is thus not a RS. His views are also often published in unreliable sources. He is far from what he used to be. It's sad. -- Valjean (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit with both of you, it may well be undue (why the hell does his opinion matter?) but synthases is not a valid reason to object to it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that the reasons given for considering this as undue include clear statements which indicate violations of NPOV, which forbids editors from using their own personal opinions about the source as a reason for censorship of properly-sourced content. Censorship is the danger of deletionism, unlike inclusionism. The opinion is from a notable subject matter expert who has studied and written about the Steele Report quite a bit. We need these opinions to flesh out how the basic, dry, facts are viewed by RS. That includes properly-attributed opinions. That is what we have done here, and I object to complete deletion. -- Valjean (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

But what does it add? What does this tell us we would not know by excluding it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It tells us about the Agalarov's tastes, and they are the ones most closely implicated in the whole pee tape allegations, the offering of prostitutes (some sources say it was Emin himself who offered them), and that the Agalarov's possess kompromat on Trump and are knowledgeable about Trump's purported participation in sex parties. Those are allegations in the dossier, written in RS, and also in sworn testimony before Congressional committees. Their alleged roles in the dossier's allegations should be told. We barely touch on it, and I don't see any need for more than we had, but we shouldn't have less.

Keep in mind that our content never intimates that Trump actually watched the shows at the club, even though he was there, and we should include the content which was mentioned about him seeming to concentrate more on making deals. That would balance the content and make it better. Deletion is not the solution. -- Valjean (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly it never actually says anything, its "nudge, nudge, wink wink, is she a GOER" title tattle of the weakest kind. One commentators opinion, we are not the Daily Myth.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've expressed my views, and I don't see more discussion as doing anything but leading into notaforum territory, so maybe we should just close this thread. You'll all do what you want to do anyway. I'm just one person. -- Valjean (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fact check

User:Valjean, by far the leading contributor to Steele dossier and the author of almost 75% of all text in this article according to Wikipedia's internal tool (although it might be even higher, considering that the tool attributes 350,000 bytes of content to Valjean in an article that is only 315,000 bytes long at present), has made numerous statements/edits that are not backed, in full or in part, by reliable sources. Here are a few examples:

• Valjean (talk page): "Now the Mueller Report confirms that there were sexually compromising tapes, the 'flow' of which was stopped by a Ukrainian Georgian businessman who was texting with Cohen, who, as Trump's fixer, would be taking care of such things. Cohen discussed this with Trump before anyone publicly knew about the tapes' existence, so when Comey briefed Trump about it in January 2017, Trump already knew about the existence of such tapes."
• Valjean (article, still in the current version): "A footnote in the Mueller Report reveals that Trump, during the presidential campaign, already knew about incriminating tapes of his behavior. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Giorgi Rtskhiladze reporting that he had successfully stopped the 'flow of tapes from Russia'. Rtskhiladze described them as 'compromising tapes of Trump', and Cohen said he then spoke to Trump about the issue. Rolling Stone reported that 'Rtskhiladze's description of the tapes' content tracks with the unverified information included in the Steele dossier,...'"
  • Refutation: The Mueller Report does not "confirm" the existence of any tapes, let alone tapes of a sexual nature. Bloomberg News has reported on the full exchange of texts between Rtskhiladze and Cohen, noting the relevant context: "The texts between Rtskhiladze and Cohen came a few weeks after an Access Hollywood video was released showing Trump talking about kissing and groping women without their consent, leading to speculation there were more compromising tapes to emerge. But it was before a dossier of unverified allegations about Trump and his campaign, compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele, was published." The exchange reads as follows:
    • Rtskhiladze: Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there's anything else. Just so u know...
    • Cohen: Tapes of what?
    • Rtskhiladze: Not sure of the content but person in Moscow was bragging had tapes from Russia trip.
    • Rtskhiladze: Will try to dial you tomorrow but wanted to be aware
    • Rtskhiladze: I'm sure it's not a big deal but there are lots of stupid people
• Valjean (talk page): "We can certainly add Rtskhiladze's later denials and attempts to CYA, which make no sense when one views his initial statement to Cohen. He was happy and Cohen was happy that the tapes were stopped. We only have the part of their exchanges reported in the Mueller Report's footnote, but there had obviously been some attempt to track down tapes, and Rtskhiladze was reporting back to Cohen. This was, after all, part of Cohen's job as Trump's fixer. He put out these kinds of fires all the time. Sure, we can include that he LATER denied. (That word should be included, otherwise it's deceptive content.) His actions indicate that he originally thought the tapes were real, or he wouldn't have 'stopped' them. To later claim there were no tapes, or they weren't real is obvious dissimulation, but we do document lies here, so go for it. Cohen had told Trump about the tapes. That's how we know that Trump 'already' knew, long before Comey briefed him at Trump Tower about the allegation in the dossier."
  • Refutation: Valjean makes it sound as though Rtskhiladze told Cohen that he had "Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia" and Cohen then replied something to the effect of: "Oh, you mean the pee tape?" As discussed above, that is incorrect.
• Valjean (article, still in the current version): "Thirteen Russian nationals and three companies have been charged for their efforts to undermine the election and support Trump. They started their campaign to help Trump in 2014, long before the official start of his campaign."
  • Refutation: This is a straightforward misrepresentation of the cited New York Times source, which actually states that the Russians were engaged in identity theft and other cyber crimes as early as 2014, and then began supporting Trump in 2016 (i.e., after Trump declared his candidacy in 2015). By inverting the timetable, Valjean implies that the Russians had suspicious foreknowledge about Trump's campaign plans, something he has elaborated on at his talk page, citing a tweet. For the full context:
    • The New York Times: The Russians stole the identities of American citizens, posed as political activists and used the flash points of immigration, religion and race to manipulate a campaign in which those issues were already particularly divisive, prosecutors said. ... The Russian operation began four years ago, well before Mr. Trump entered the presidential race, a fact that he quickly seized on in his defense. ... But Mr. Trump's statement ignored the government's conclusion that, by 2016, the Russians were "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump" and disparaging Hillary Clinton, his opponent.
• Valjean (article, still in the current version, with the breathless edit summary "another confirmed allegation"!): "The dossier alleges that 'there had been talk in the Kremlin of TRUMP being forced to withdraw from the presidential race altogether as a result of recent events, ostensibly on grounds of his state and unsuitability for high office.' Kurt Eichenwald confirmed that this happened. ... "
  • Refutation: Valjean then quotes a long excerpt from a November 2016 Newsweek column by Kurt Eichenwald that in turn cites "information obtained from within Russia by a Western intelligence source." In context, it is obvious that Steele is Eichenwald's source and that Valjean is using Steele to "corroborate" Steele:
    • Newsweek: [Putin] was also encouraged by the relentlessly positive comments about him by Trump, even after the Republican nominee began receiving criticism within his own party for sounding too supportive of the Kremlin, according to information obtained from within Russia by a Western intelligence source. ... The dossier on Clinton mainly contains recordings of conversations and intercepted phone calls; the intelligence source said the dossier has been controlled by Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman. When she was secretary of state, however, Clinton knew her conversations in Moscow might be recorded, so the dossier appears to have been used mainly for intelligence rather than to embarrass her with allies, the source said. ... By August, however, fears began to emerge within the Kremlin that the effort was falling apart. Trump's attacks on the parents of a slain Muslim American soldier following the father's speech at the Democratic convention created dismay in the Kremlin. Top Russian officials came to believe Trump would be forced to withdraw from the race because of his psychological state and apparent unsuitability for the presidency, according to information obtained by the Western intelligence source.
• Valjean (article, still in the current version): "The dossier alleges that Cohen traveled to Prague and met with Russian officials at Rossotrudnichestvo headquarters. While it has not been proven that Cohen did this, Kurt Eichenwald reported that something similar happened: 'Western intelligence has also obtained reports that a Trump associate met with a pro-Putin member of Russian parliament at a building in Eastern Europe maintained by Rossotrudnichestvo ... '"
  • Refutation: As before, Steele is Eichenwald's source. Eichenwald quoting or paraphrasing Steele does not "confirm" Steele's reporting.
• Valjean (article, still in the current version with light modifications): "Cohen has made different types of false statements regarding visiting Prague. He has twice admitted visiting Prague. His alibi claim that he was on Capri with Steven Van Zandt at the time of the alleged Prague trip is also false, and he has failed to provide receipts he claimed would prove he was there. Van Zandt's wife, Maureen, said they met in Rome, not Capri, and Van Zandt confirmed that he met Cohen and his wife in Rome at that time."
  • Refutation: While this is primarily just poor drafting on Valjean's part, this paragraph makes it sound like Cohen has "admitted" that the dossier's claims about him are true and that his denials are false. In fact, Cohen made no such admission.
• Valjean (article, still in the current version): "The accusation that Aleksej Gubarev's 'XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct "altering operations" against the Democratic Party leadership' has been proven true, due to evidence found during the discovery process in the defamation suit(s) Gubarev had filed against others."
  • Refutation: At best, this edit selectively quotes the cited New York Times source, which makes clear that the dossier's sensational claim that Gubarev was personally involved in "'altering operations' against the Democratic Party leadership" has not been substantiated:
    • The New York Times: Yet the report stops short of directly linking Mr. Gubarev or his executives to the hacking, as asserted in the dossier. As Anthony Ferrante, the report's lead author and a former F.B.I. agent, noted in a deposition: "I have no evidence of them actually sitting behind a keyboard."  ... Evan Fray-Witzer, a lawyer for Mr. Gubarev, said that hackers using a client's servers was hardly unique for a web-hosting company, or any tech company. ... While the report found no direct evidence of a direct link to the Russian hackers, it did conclude that Mr. Gubarev's web-hosting services are rife with lawlessness.
• Valjean (article, still in the current version): "Martin Longman, writing for Washington Monthly, found Steele's prediction of the privatisation of 19% of Rosneft 'tantalizing' and 'intriguing', and went on to write: 'Either that number was floated somewhere in the press or that's a remarkable coincidence or the intelligence was good and the promise was kept.'"
• Valjean (article, still in the current version): "Luke Harding wrote that 'Steele's Rosneft source was right' about the sale: 'This was one of the biggest privatizations since the 1990s ... Steele's mole had known about the plan months before Rosneft's management board was informed.'"
• Valjean (talk page): "TheTimesAreAChanging, interesting, but Steele's report from October 18, 2016, detailing Page's meeting with Rosneft officials in July 2016, predates these sources. Do you have evidence to document that this 19% stake was already available?"
  • Refutation: Valjean attaches immense importance to the idea that Steele predicted the partial privatization of Rosneft before anyone else on October 18, 2016, citing multiple opinion columns (with attribution) to convey that idea to readers. If Steele got that right, Valjean suggests, then everything in the dossier about Carter Page being offered brokerage of the sale in exchange for Trump lifting sanctions on Russia must be true. However, Valjean should know that the privatization plan and the 19.5% number were "floated" in the press because I provided him with contemporaneous sources to that effect long before the article edits were made. For example, Bloomberg, August 29, 2016 referred to Russia "proceeding with its delayed sale of 19.5 percent of Rosneft itself," and it wasn't breaking any news at the time. Actually, the privatization plan goes all the way back to 2013: "In Moscow, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's cabinet announced plans to sell a 19 percent stake in Rosneft this year as part of its broader privatization efforts, a far larger stake than previously envisaged."—Reuters, April 11, 2013.

And yet this proliferation of misstatements is only the tip of the iceberg. Frankly, Trump may be a bad president and he may have downplayed the Russian interference for political reasons, but several years of FBI investigations have been unable to find any evidence that Trump has been a secret Russian asset for decades and is controlled with a pee tape. Under normal circumstances, I suspect, edits like these would be considered grounds for very severe sanctions, whether the inaccuracies are intentional or merely due to well-meaning incompetence. Either way, the current version of this article gives vastly undue weight to opinion pieces from 2016-2018, embellishes those opinion pieces, and is now at odds with the consensus of the most reliable sources, e.g. The New York Times, which reported on April 19, 2019 that "the release on Thursday of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months—that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove. Mr. Mueller's report contained over a dozen passing references to the document's claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out. ... How the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain, but the document may be the result of a high-stakes game of telephone, in which rumors and hearsay were passed from source to source." Notwithstanding his rhetoric about "Censorship is the danger of deletionism, unlike inclusionism" when it comes to extensively quoting from such masterpieces as Jonathan Chait's "I'm a Peeliever and You Should Be, Too" Valjean (then editing under his former name, BullRangifer) led the (successful) effort to exclude this content from America's paper of record, falsely accusing the New York Times of "mak[ing] a false claim about what the Mueller Report says." Hopefully other editors will find the sources/evidence presented here instructive in improving this article, which is not owned by any editor. I have been trying to avoid the AP2 topic area due to the current political climate as well as my own past mistakes and will not be making any edits to this article for now, but seeing this on my Watchlist compelled me to leave a comment on the talk page. I am confident that distortions cannot stand forever.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I'll be happy to make improvements and correct anything that is not accurate. I would appreciate it if you'd drop the breathless personalization of all your comments. They come across as a lack of AGF. Please discuss content and not editors. I'm not an editor known for edit warring or ownership behavior and am usually quite amenable to making changes that improve the article. I'm well aware that I have blind spots, just like every other editor. Unlike some editors, I do not claim to be "neutral", but I do try to edit neutrally, and that's what we should all aspire to do.

I have already tweaked the part about the 13 arrested Russians by using a quote rather than a paraphrase. We do know that some Russians already knew in 2013 that Trump had presidential ambitions in 2016, and they said they'd support him. The actual Russian efforts morphed with time, from disruption of American society and elections, to attacks on Clinton, and then to support of Trump. During this time, multiple Trump associates were observed and recorded in many secret meetings with Russian agents in many locations across Europe. The Trump campaign lied about every one of these meetings. The discussions between Trump's people and the Russian intelligence agents were so worrying that EIGHT foreign allied intelligence agencies reported these findings to the FBI. Dutch intelligence, which has some of the best cyber capabilities in the world, had also penetrated Russian efforts and had hacked the building from which the Russians were performing their hacking. They hacked the surveillance cameras inside and outside the building, thus enabling them to identify exactly which Russians made which keystrokes and when. They reported this information to American intelligence, so the proof of Russian efforts to help Trump was overwhelmingly solid.

I will take a serious look at your other objections and see if there is a true need to make any improvements. I always appreciate other eyes. -- Valjean (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Err the Bloomberg report does not say the footnote does not exist,. I stopped at that point.Slatersteven (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the article is still mainly drawing on contemporary sources from the time period the dossier was published. We now know that the Nunes memo was largely accurate, relying in part on the dossier for the faulty FISA applications, we now know that Steele's sub-source disavowed the dossier, we now know that the dossier was targeted for potential misinformation purposes by the Russians, and we know that the dossier was funded by Trump's political opponent to obviously attack his credibility in an attempt to influence the election.

This article has had POV issues from the beginning that have been difficult to correct largely because the primary author, Valjean, has such strong views on the topic. A good example is in the lead - However, many allegations in the dossier remain unverified, and one allegation against Michael Cohen was dismissed by the Mueller Report using Cohen's own words. This wording would have us assume Mueller simply took Cohen at his word to disprove the claim, while still allowing it may be true. An improved wording would be ...one allegation against Michael Cohen was disproven." If an uninformed reader were to read the article they would walk away thinking that the dossier is mostly true, when in fact most current RS, the Mueller Report, and the IG Report are telling us mostly the opposite.

Another good example, highlighted above, is the reliance on speculative pieces by journalists such as Chait and Harding. In the section "Cultivation of Trump through time," the article somehow seems to suggest, without any evidence that is related to the current Russian government efforts, that the Czechoslovakian government spying on Trump and his then wife is part of this large attempt to cultivate Trump, and is thin on any actual evidence of such cultivation. The Soviets spied on a lot of people, and it's no stretch to think the prominent people targeted for surveillance ended up doing something more prominent. How on earth is this quote - Harding proceeds to describe the KGB's cultivation process, and posits that they may have opened a file on Trump as early as 1977, when he married Czech model Ivana Zelníčková; the Soviet spies may have closely observed and analyzed the couple from that time on. relevant at all to the Steele Dossier?

Additionally, the article is absurdly long, coming in around 21,400 words. This would a complete article with 1/4 of that. Describe what it was, what the media said at the time, how it was used, and how further investigations revealed issues. There is no need to go into such intricate detail for minor, unproven claims.

Finally, recognizing all the hard work Valjean has put into the article, I think they are too closely invested in the current version of the article, and I don't think we'll find a way to move forward unless that approach changes. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, just a quick reply. As more information has come out, all of those points in your first paragraph have been addressed in this article. Feel free to let me know of any we may have missed. -- Valjean (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Not with the proper weight given what we know is true and what was perhaps misreported before the facts were out. As I said, this article was more accurate in 2017. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point, but we probably disagree on what has been "misreported" and what is "true". Many of Trump's supporters and media sources have run with the slightest tip in his favor and treated it as a total exoneration, such as claiming that the FBI's sloppiness and low bar for FISA applications means that all accusations against Trump are thus false and that the Russians did not interfere in the election at all, and some then go so far as to claim it was Hillary who colluded with Russia.

It's this "taking things too far", rather than sticking to the bare facts, which is problematic. The weight given in unreliable sources is not the weight we can give such issues in the article. We give it the weight given in RS. We can't include things that are taken too far, but we should document the bare facts, if they are reported in RS. Feel free to mention specific points, and the RS which mention them, so that we can improve their coverage here. I have no doubt that we can always improve the article. -- Valjean (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: - which source supports The accusation that Aleksej Gubarev's 'XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct "altering operations" against the Democratic Party leadership' has been proven true, due to evidence found during the discovery process in the defamation suit(s) Gubarev had filed against others.? starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:, I have searched the sources used and can't find the "discovery process" part, although I think it was in that connection. I have, therefore revised that part. Edit summary: "tweaked (I can't find the "discovery process" part) and added an exculpatory explanation for Gubarev's relative innocence in the actual misuse of his botnets." I hope that improvement is satisfactory.

That unsealed FTI report also ties misuse of Gubarev's web-hosting companies to the Podesta fishing attack. Gubarev was receiving $200,000 a month. Apparently, turning a blind eye (giving him the benefit of the doubt here) to Russian intelligence and criminal misuse is very lucrative! This article is very informative. -- Valjean (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: - how's the article now, for everything you mentioned before Gubarev? starship.paint (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping to alert me to the recent changes to this article, which I hope will stick. As I indicated above, I am not planning on editing this article myself because I am frankly terrified of getting involved in an edit war or violating a discretionary sanction, even inadvertently, and I was not sure if editors would be receptive to my "fact check." While this article still has problems, my major objections listed above—with the exception of the concerns that I raised about Gubarev and the Rosneft partial privatization—have been largely resolved in the current version. I am grateful to Valjean for removing the content from Eichenwald, which he conceded "seems to be partially circular." I sincerely hope that the community can continue to build on these improvements. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I totally understand your caution. It is justified, BUT please don't let that keep you from making conservatively-worded suggestions for improvement. I don't think you would get in trouble for that, unless you (still?) have a topic ban from AP2. I don't recall. More eyes are always welcome, and I have appreciated your views, even if I may not agree with all of them. That disagreement is immaterial compared to the value of your constructive criticism. I have my blind spots and appreciate any help. If we all AGF, we can work together and collaboratively improve this and other articles. -- Valjean (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the collaborative attitude. With regard to your recent edit, my suggestion (non-binding, of course) would be to change the allegation's verification status to "partially confirmed." If the dossier had merely said that "Hackers had been using XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates ... to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic Party leadership," then it could be considered fully confirmed, but the dossier actually stated that "XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic Party leadership." That might seem like a semantic distinction, but the wording has very different implications in each case, as the FTI report commissioned by BuzzFeed did not establish any culpability on the part of XBT or Webzilla executives. You seem to have sidestepped this issue a bit by changing "the accusation ... has been proven true" to "the validity of the accusation ... has been confirmed," citing an expert source for the attributed opinion that "both Gubarev and the dossier 'can be right' ... 'Neither BuzzFeed nor Steele have accused Gubarev of being a willing participant in wrongdoing.'" (As an aside, the second part of that statement seems to be irrelevant, considering that we already know that Steele was not the source for any of the factual information in his reporting and that BuzzFeed never asserted that it had independently verified each accusation prior to publication.) By contrast, I think it would be cleaner to just list the allegation as "partially confirmed" per the cited New York Times source: "A report by a former F.B.I. cyberexpert unsealed in a federal court in Miami found evidence that suggests Russian agents used networks operated by Mr. Gubarev to start their hacking operation during the 2016 presidential campaign. ... Yet the report stops short of directly linking Mr. Gubarev or his executives to the hacking, as asserted in the dossier." So, that's my two cents.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, the full allegation contains two elements, but the content in question is only the first part of the allegation:

1. "XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic Party leadership"[2]
2. and that Gubarev had been coerced by the FSB and was a significant player.[3] (Report 166)

That last part is unproven (and even if totally true, is likely unprovable, like many other allegations in the dossier), but the first part, the part in question, is proven, not just "partially confirmed," or am I parsing this wrong? Should we change what's there, or is it accurate? (BTW, Gubarev lost his lawsuit.) -- Valjean (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't wish to belabor the point, and if this can't be resolved at this time then I am happy to move on, but it seems clear that both of those allegations are related and that the reference to "XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates" can only mean Gubarev and/or his executives (who control those companies), which is also how The New York Times parsed that allegation. I'm aware that Gubarev could not prove the legal standard for defamation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What is as certain as it's possible to be is that XBT/Webzilla was used for nefarious purposes, but we don't know whether Gubarev's role was witting or unwitting. The words "and its affiliates" does not refer to people like Gubarev, but to other companies he owns. He is mentioned later in the allegation, and we don't deal with that.

We could add and attribute this: XBT has denied the allegations, and "findings do not prove or disprove claims made about XBT in the dossier, but show how the company could have been used by cyber criminals, wittingly or unwittingly."[4]

Feel free to suggest alternate wording. -- Valjean (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a worthy addition.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- Valjean (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"using Cohen's own words"

Mr Ernie, you made a change with the following edit summary: (if it was dismissed in the Mueller Report, then it was the Mueller team's conclusion)

Those words are not editorializing, but directly from the fact-checking source. Maybe they should be in quotes. Leaving them out gives a false impression, because Mueller did not investigate this claim, and therefore could not have offered a "conclusion". He just gave it passing mention by citing Cohen's own words. We do say it was "dismissed" by the Mueller Report. We should flesh that out better:

"one allegation against incident involving Michael Cohen was not investigated by Mueller, but, according to Glenn Kessler, Mueller "simply dismisses the incident in Cohen’s own words".[5]

Valjean (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's too much detail, and still attempts to suggest that Cohen may or may not have been to Prague for such a meeting, contrary to any hard evidence (and no, an unnamed person saying there was a cell ping isn't evidence). Here's the quote from the Mueller Report - Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false. That's straight from the Mueller Report, in Mueller's narrative voice, and is simple as it needs to be. The Mueller Report dismissed the claim, and we don't need to go into more detail to suggest this or that. Why would Mueller put something in his report he didn't agree with? Kessler's attribution is not necessary, and his single opinion is probably also UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie:, let me start off by saying I don't intend to contest the edit, so I'll just share my thoughts about it. There is no "attempt to suggest that Cohen may or may not have been to Prague for such a meeting." We provide what RS say and let readers make up their minds. If we leave out information from RS, then we are steering their thinking, IOW we would be "attempting to suggest". The allegation is an unproven one, not a debunked one. When a suspect lies repeatedly about an allegation, law enforcement knows that signals consciousness of guilt. Cohen did that (Prague visit), and Trump did that (Ritz Carlton). In both cases, their stories kept changing and evolving. That stinks. The Prague allegation is still unproven and open, not closed or debunked. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. -- Valjean (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Kessler source does not support a categorical statement that the allegation against Cohen was not investigated by Mueller, only that the Mueller Report does not include any explicit reference to such an investigation. That is an important distinction because Mueller's team may have pursued investigative leads that are not elucidated by the report, or even be classified. We already know per the Horowitz Report, the New York Times, and many other sources that the FBI investigated "every line of Mr. Steele's short memos" and interviewed at least two of his sources (including the source for the "Cohen in Prague" allegation), so it seems entirely misleading to insinuate to readers that this allegation was dismissed without an investigation. In fact, the only way that I can parse the sources to conclude that Mueller's team did not investigate the Prague allegation is by assuming that that investigation was handled by a different FBI team or occurred prior to Mueller's appointment. Either way, Mueller may very well have "dismissed" the allegation after learning that both Steele's source and Cohen strongly denied it under oath.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:, we are not "insinuating to readers that this allegation was dismissed without an investigation." We are quoting an extremely authoritative and RS. Our content is supposed to be based on such sources. That is not OR. The opposite is OR. The article described several attempts to investigate the Prague allegation, and they came up empty. The Kessler source does support an attributed statement, which is in the body. I do not intend to contest the now shortened version in the lead.

As for Steele's sources, the IG Report indicates that the sources may not have been honest in their denials. The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed this key source "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the election reporting following its release to the public". Keep in mind the sources that tried to "retract"/minimize what they had said in confidence, which later appeared in the dossier, were unwitting sources who were speaking candidly (the truth) to "co-conspirators" (I use that term loosely). Then, when their words were later used in the dossier, they knew they were in trouble and sought to CYA. Suspects do this literally ALL THE TIME, with rare exception. Their denials mean nothing, so the allegations are still unproven and open, not closed or debunked. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. -- Valjean (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Hey guys why not update the Steel dossier? Currently not known as the "Trump-Russia collusion but a well "known" and "fake" document purchased from Fusian GPS by Hillary Clinton. 2600:100E:B045:9E31:350A:7431:4040:EB94 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Alleged denial of Russian interference, falsely (and generally) attributed to people.

There is very problematic writing under the "Conspiracy theory" section.

The fact that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections has been disputed and denied in a conspiracy theory[26][27] pushed by Trump, Fox News, and GOP politicians like Representatives Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)[26] and Matt Gaetz (R-Florida).[421]

It's hard to even start with this...

"Russian interference" referenced in it's full broad spectrum. "Trump" - Has been denying Russian interference in the broad sense, but allegation still requires some source IMHO. "Fox News" - cherry picked, and lacking source of allegation.

Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz have never denied Russian interference (in it's broad reference). To the contrary: Jordan has said many times that Russia DID interfere in the election. Here's one instance: https://twitter.com/jim_jordan/status/1019201778439671809?lang=en The proposed source where Gaetz is allegedly denying any Russian interference, links to a vanity fair op-ed, which does not meet the requirements for reliable sources. Not only that: It actually makes no such mention of allegations of denial of Russian interference. It only states that Gaetz is of opinion that the Steele dossier is and/or contains Russian disinformation. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/republicans-use-mueller-testimony-to-push-conspiracy-theories-jim-jordan-matt-gaetz

Milanbishop (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Milanbishop: let's work on this. If I understand you correctly, your main objection would be solved if we reworded this: "The fact that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections has been disputed and denied in a conspiracy theory..." Is that correct? While the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative involves a number of different falsehoods and conspiracy theories, we should be more specific when linking to individuals. Is that the problem? If so, I'm certainly interested in improving this content. Do you have a suggestion for better wording? We can then develop that and thus resolve this. -- Valjean (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Milanbishop: here's an attempt, using more sources and simply leaving Gaetz out (the list of GOP politicians who have done this is VERY long (Nunes, Gaetz, Gohmert, et al), so Jordan is just symbolic. If necessary we could add several more, with the RS to back it up, but I don't see that it's necessary to litigate the matter in this article, just that we make the point.

These conspiracy theories have been pushed by Trump, Fox News, and GOP politicians like Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have installed this version as it's a step in the right direction. -- Valjean (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Yep, I agree with this version. It goes back on subject and takes care of all the problems with the previous version. As a side note: denial of Russian meddling can't be a "conspiracy theory", because the conspiracy is the thing that is absent from the theory ;)

Side note two: The article still has a lot of redundancy, and also has this line in it "still the subject of the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, a conspiracy theory pushed by Trump and Fox News. ".

I think this is showing some glaring (lazy ) bias: again lacking sources, and ignoring all other outlets that have reported on elements of the counter-narrative such as (more prominently): The Hill, The Federalist, Washington Examiner, New York Post, Daily Wire (and plenty more).

I think the best option is to just scrap the 'pushed by Trump and Fox News', because it adds some redundant and unnecessary selection bias and opinion of the editor AFAIC: The article it links to will provide sources and context.

Straight linking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanbishop (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this: "denial of Russian meddling can't be a "conspiracy theory", because the conspiracy is the thing that is absent from the theory ;)", but it reminds me of this: "For the 'whataboutism' thing to work, you need an actual 'about' to 'what'." -- Calton 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Because Russian meddling has been proven, it is a conspiracy theory to keep on denying it and creating counter narratives, IOW fale narratives, often called "conspiracy theories".

The line "still the subject of the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, a conspiracy theory pushed by Trump and Fox News" is important, because RS tell us that is a fact.

There is nothing lazy about ignoring unreliable sources which push false narratives. We are not allowed to use them for several reasons, including that they also lack due weight, but, because RS do document their false narratives, we do mention those narratives, usually without using the unreliable sources as references. That's how we do it here. We use the RS to debunk the unreliable ones. If you have some specific sources you're wondering about why we don't use, then post them here and we can look at them, but be careful not to engage in forbidden advocacy of fringe POV.

The "pushed by Trump and Fox News" is not "redundant and unnecessary selection bias and opinion of the editor". Note it is sourced to RS, and many other persons, and many other RS could have been added to bolster it, but that wasn't really necessary, as explained above. It is included because RS tell us that. An editorial selection bias that favors what RS say is not only admirable, it is a requirement for editing here. That's how we are supposed to edit. Editors who do not do that get in trouble. We favor RS. -- Valjean (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Dossier aka "Russian-Trump" Dossier

The lede puts forward an alternative name for the Steele dossier, i.e., the "Russian-Trump" dossier. The name has no official standing, and the two sources put up for it are headlines only, not in the actual articles. Headlines in journalism are often designed to catch attention, and are not substantive (often not even written by the article author). In any case, when the dossier is named in the Washington Post article, it's called the "Steele dossier." I suspect, like other "headline grabbers" this is put into the lede for similar effect. Tachypaidia (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tachypaidia: a minor point, but the normal order is with Trump first, as in Trump-Russia dossier. I suspect your writing is a typo.

"Trump-Russia dossier" is the original title, not "Steele dossier". After a long period of time had elapsed, the media began using "Steele dossier" more and more, so we decided to change the title. There is no doubt about "Steele dossier", and there never was any doubt about the original title. You are the first one to ever question it, but you can't change history. "Trump dossier" is also seen frequently when referring to this document, while "Russia dossier" usually refers to the dossier of kompromat on Trump held by Russian intelligence. They have one on Hillary Clinton, and likely on any other high profile westerners, as well as on their own oligarchs. All intelligence services just love to do that!

We don't use headlines for significant content, for the reasons you mention, but we do use them to document usage, and if this was a big deal, I could dig up many RS that use that term in their content, not just their headlines, but this isn't even something we would normally source based on the history of the document and the rules for titles here.

We are also required to bold redirects, and the original title is now a redirect and is mentioned in the lead in the proper manner we always do with previous titles that have become redirects.

There was nothing sensational about that original title, as it was an accurately descriptive title, and it is still an accurate description of the content. Our rules for titles allow titles that are accurate descriptions of the content, regardless of use in RS, but we also use titles that are the most "common usage" in RS, so our rules would allow either title.

I'm not even sure why you requested sourcing. No one has ever done that, likely because they knew the history and the ubiquitous usage of that phrase by RS. Do you have some personal objection to that original title? -- Valjean (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

At least initially, other titles, as the "Trump dossier", were in wide use, along with other names as the "Pee Dossier" or the "Pee-Tape Dossier" (with surprising popularity), the "Russian-Trump" dossier (in this sequence), the "Russian dossier" (used alone), et. al. The untitled nature of the dossier itself likely led to such disparate and morphing naming. I don't see where its inclusion serves disambiguation, but I would allow that it does have some search value for before the dossier's provenance became well known. Tachypaidia (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's called many things. Ones with "pee tape" have been popular because they are sensational, although they are, content-wise, not substantive, as that is a very minor accusation, and if false, doesn't in any way affect the potential reliability of the rest of the dossier. The other accusations are much more important, but just not as sensational. Even Steele didn't rate its likelihood of being true very high. The version of the tape posted online is interesting (almost PG13) and matches exactly the room in which Trump stayed, so if it's a fake, it's a very good one. I can send you the link if you want it. -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The Steele dossier is bantered about with monikers as the Trump "pee tape" dossier preciously because of sensational accusations--as is the nature of slander--have the most damning effects in popular perception. This is why the Access Hollywood tape nearly sunk the Trump Campaign, far more so than any substantive policy criticism. It is politically advantageous to continually press exactly these salacious claims and keep scurrilous language in the narrative. Tachypaidia (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree. People tend to gravitate toward sensational "shiny baubles" and ignore the more substantive and confirmed allegations. Trump's allies have successfully used these baubles to minimize and dismiss the dossier as just a trash document, even though the sexual allegations are a very small part of it, and his supporters fall for that tactic. His defenders rarely use serious arguments against it, likely because Trump keeps undermining such arguments by confirming that he is supporting, and benefitting from, the ongoing Russian GRU military's undeclared warfare and interference described in the dossier. Again, only his supporters are fooled. They won't admit that the main red thread in the dossier has been proven beyond all doubt. You are quite correct, but Trump benefits most by using distraction: "It is politically advantageous" for Trump to move the focus to the unproven "salacious claims" and "scurrilous language." That distracts from the real substance. He has never really suffered from his image as an immoral playboy. -- Valjean (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS opposed the inclusion of the sensational allegations, but Steele's MI6 training and own integrity required him to include all allegations so they could be investigated. Multiple independent sources claimed the Ritz Carlton allegation was true, and Moscow prostitutes still assert it happened (they do talk to each other... ). Steele himself never gave it much credibility. There are many other alleged actions by Trump which can provide kompromat to use against him. -- Valjean (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So, these incessant salacious allegations by Trump-haters actually benefits Trump as he "never really suffered from his image as an immoral playboy?" So Trump-loving of them to do so. And this is why the Access Hollywood tape: "when you're a Star they let you do it... grab them by the ..." nearly ended his campaign, until he apologized for it? I am not going to argue such incongruities. Accusations must be proven, not disproven. Were Trump not a public figure, such accusations without propondering evidence would be prosecutable under slander statutes. Tachypaidia (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The courts have ruled otherwise about the publication of the dossier. It was in the public interest that it be published. Also, at Wikipedia, it is RS, not possible lawsuits, which guide our editing and content. It's not as if Wikipedia is publishing allegations not found in the media. We only document what myriad RS have written. A lawsuit would have to succeed at silencing them before it would reach Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You have missed the point. The Court would not adjudicate these slanderous claims as a defamation claim precisely because the President is a public figure, and therefore, publication is in the public interest. This does not parlay into the accusations not being slanderous, only that because of the person's position the accusations cannot be prosecuted. Moreover, even given that the making of such accusations are legal, the does not absolve WP editors from exercising propriety in their editorial judgements. You may, for example, paste an ugly collage of accusations against Mr. Nicholas Sandman by citing "reliable sources," but that is neither prudent nor proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you even mention this. Without some policy-based reference, I have no idea what you're really getting at. Do you think we are violating some Wikipedia policy here? One would think the myriad others who watch this article would have noticed that by now, if that were the case. We have been very careful to follow all policies, including WP:PUBLICFIGURE. All allegations are properly sourced and described as allegations, not proven fact, except where they are proven fact. (Several are proven fact, but still presented as allegations, so we tend to err on the side of caution here.) -- Valjean (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I make a statement on propriety in use of slanderous materials, and I get a pedestrian response on within "policy." The defamation lawsuits are plenty, and dismissed not on the merits, but based on some "privilege," but even so, some have prevailed or are still pending. Given what has recently come to light in primary sources, we know these accusations are, to be generous, on thinnest tissue. Indeed, accusations based on malicious money-grubbing fabulists is more fair. The "reliable sources" have wholly omitted addressing these primary sources, or as the New York Times does, misdirects; rather than addressing the significance and reliability of Steel's primary source, we get a dirge on the Trump administration disclosing his identity (which was already disclosed by private researchers) and walnut-shell shuffling on the substantive implications. Given that we know far more from primary sources, a decent respect would require discerning and responsible use of these deficient and partisan secondary sources in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tachypaidia:

1. I'm still not sure what you really want to do. Are you suggesting that we not document what RS say? Content that is believed to be slanderous by some is not considered slanderous by others, so we simply follow NPOV and don't take a position (taking sides) on that in our editing when myriad RS have documented the allegations. That is the case here. NPOV tells us to stay neutral and simply document what RS say. We then follow how our policies instruct us to deal with such material. We can hardly refuse to document and describe what The Guardian has described it as "one of the most explosive documents in modern political history".
2. As far as sourcing goes, policy tells us to primarily base our content on secondary and tertiary sources, and only reservedly on primary sources for uncontroversial statements of fact without interpretation, usually those that have already been mentioned in some manner in secondary sources. (For example, a secondary source may vaguely mention when something happened, but good primary sources provide us with the exact date. We can then use that primary source to provide the exact date.) If we depend on primary sources for controversial content, we risk violating OR.
3. The "reliability of Steele's primary source" is somewhat questionable after the publication of the dossier, as the FBI noted. They noted that, after the dossier became public, he seemed to be minimizing his role as a source, IOW not being completely honest, which is quite understandable as his life is in danger. He wants to distance himself from what he originally said. One of his key sub-sources did the same thing, and the FBI also noted that fact. When people are covering their ass, you can trust that their original statements, made in confidence, were likely truthful, but their later statements are less than honest. When people get exposed or embarrassed, they often resort to deception.

Do you have any other policy-based considerations we should keep in mind? I'm certainly open to considering them. -- Valjean (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Eh the request move shows that Trump-Russia Dossier is not a correct title for the article and rarely used as a title for it. I don't think we need an also known as in the lead like that. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we do need that wording there. Read my comment above more carefully. We are required to bold the redirect of the former title. That is standard practice here. Titles can also be descriptive, regardless of "common usage". The original title filled that role, and a search with those terms will always point to the right information.

  The close of the requested move said: "Both titles are permissible, but consensus clearly favors the proposed target." That consensus took a long time to change, and I was among them who favored the change. -- Valjean (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why would you assume I did not read your comment carefully? Also your arguments make no sense. Do you know how many redirects there are to this page? Why focus on that one? I see no need or benefit to the reader to keep the inaccurate and outdated title of the article in the lead. From what I am seeing consensus in this discussion is to remove the unnecessary extra title at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• We don't mention and bold just any redirect. We mention and bold former titles, especially when they are still accurate descriptions. The title is not "inaccurate and outdated". I don't like it isn't a good reason to alter the current wording. You need policy-based arguments. You are bucking long traditions and manual of style rules. -- Valjean (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Again with the baseless personal accusations, cut that shit out. If you don't have an argument to keep it that is fine, you could just like that particular redirect over the previous titles or redirects and that is fine. But we generally do not include useless trivial like that especially when there is no basis for it. As you should know by now we go by consensus, at this point consensus is showing that we should exclude it. PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: ?? I don't know what personal accusations you're referring to. I try to be careful. So far you have expressed what you don't like, but not referenced any policy-based reasons for making any change. I welcome such reasons, as it is those we can use for making decisions. I suggest you check myriad other articles which have had their titles changed. You'll find that they often do exactly what we've done here because that's what we're supposed to do. No editor here has added those words for any personal or partisan reasons. -- Valjean (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Things like suggesting I did not read the conversation, that I was making a DONTLIKEIT argument, and now recently that I make these comments for "partisan reasons" those are the personal comments that I asked you to stop. Do you not see the issue with what you are doing here? PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Your complaints (that you don't like it) without any mention or basis in policy, manual of style, or normal and historical practice are just that. That's just an accurate observation, not a PA. The "partisan reasons" words have absolutely nothing to do with you. I don't know how you could even think that. To move things in a more constructive direction, try using policy-based reasoning. I haven't seen any of that yet. -- Valjean (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• So that is a no then? You have no idea why your personal comments are inappropriate? Okay then. Listen, I know you like having your old title there but you have to face facts without any MOS or policy based reason to keep it, it is up to editor discretion. Please respect consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• 2 out of 3 is hardly a consensus, so you should self-revert, but I will just do it per BRD. Vote counting isn't determinative, especially when you have not presented any policy or MOS reasons for changing things. None at all. That's why your objections are just that you don't like it.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has this to say, and there may be other places that mention our common practice: "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold."

I have reverted your improper change. Now please continue discussion per BRD, as you haven't presented a single policy-based reason yet. -- Valjean (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Going to edit war your preferred version now? It says significant alternative title which that is not. Consensus found that it was not back with the request move. It is giving undue weight to a fringe view with a irrelevant title like that. Your ownership of this article is becoming tendentious and should cease immediately along with your personal comments to me and Tachypaida. It is really starting to look like WP:SEALION. PackMecEng (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• A single, allowed, revert is not edit warring. In the absence of any policy-based arguments from you, continuing discussion is the proper thing to do, and your attacks aren't appreciated.

You have mentioned this before, and I'd like to see evidence for your claim: "It says significant alternative title which that is not. Consensus found that it was not back with the request move." Look here: Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 18#Requested move 13 December 2019. Where in that RM do you get that idea? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see that we discussed "significant alternative titles" at all. I really doubt that anyone would agree with your assertion that it is a "fringe view" or "irrelevant title". Civil discussion is not ownership behavior, and my history at this article does not show any ownership problems. Please be civil and just address my concerns. What policies justify your arguments? I have presented our MOS justification and common practice. -- Valjean (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• You keep saying you have policy and MOS on your side but you do not. As we both have demonstrated, repeatedly. In fact it is exactly against the MOS as you present since it is not a significant alternative titles again as demonstrated by the request move you even linked to. It specifically found that your title was wrong and in the far minority. Your failure to accept consensus and stonewall your prefered version is NOT civil discussion. It is a clear case of WP:SEALION. I think at this point Tachypaidia can revert citing clear consensus here since you have no policy based arguments. I would be happy to discuss it more with you after to see if it has an merit to be included in the article, which at this point it does not. PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• It is your opinion that it's not a significant alternative title. It was significant enough to be the title for a very long time, and it is still a very accurate description of the content. That is unchanged. You can't deny that this article is about a dossier that describes Trump-Russia relations. That title was never "wrong", and it is still not "wrong". That was not why we changed the title.

You're describing your opinion, but have yet to even mention a policy for not including it. The requested move took no position on the subject, only that Steele's name was now used more in the media and so we changed the title per common usage. MOS says to bold significant alternative titles, and that was the most significant alterative title, so that's why it's there. The MOS tells us to do that.

"Trump-Russia dossier" is still, totally unchanged, a significant search term and accurate description, even more so than "Steele dossier", which has zero descriptive value about the content, only the provenance. The title change did not represent a change of content. It's still about Trump and Russia.

Again, please suggest policies to back your opinions, otherwise they still stand alone as just your opinions. -- Valjean (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• You keep suggesting that our opinions are invalid for some reason? I don't understand that. Since neither of our arguments are specifically backed by policy it is editor discretion and in this case that is to remove the obsolete and useless title. Your opinion is backed by personal opinion where as mine is backed by community consensus that the previous was not a good title. I really do not see what is so hard to understand? Please enlighten me why you want to fight consensus so hard. Please help improve the article rather than this. PackMecEng (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Opinions without any policy backing don't have any weight. I have MOS behind my view. The RM took no position on the merits of the former title as a description. It's still very accurate, and since the MOS says to bold significant alternative titles in the first sentence, and we do that in myriad other articles, it's perfectly proper to do it here. The consensus you refer to is only in this thread, with you and Tachypaidia against me. That's not impressive. -- Valjean (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Opinions without any policy backing don't have any weight. I have MOS behind my view. Again you do not. Please stop repeating that debunked claim. MOS and policy back our interpretation, not yours. No matter how many times you repeat them. Also while I appreciate that you do not think there is consensus, you are also mistaken there as well. Your arguments are not very convincing and hold no weight. I suggest you self revert and let the consensus version stand. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Firstly, the consensus was on the title itself and not the content, it's common to have significant alternative titles present in the lede, which is the case presently - from WP:OTHERNAMES, ...when this title (i.e. COMMONNAME) is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (emphasized text mine). If you compare "Steele dossier" to "Trump dossier" in Google News hits, the terms are almost on par, 60k vs. 63k respectively. If you observe Google Trends, you get about 18 to 9 in their interest metric, which clearly shows that Trump dossier is a significant alternative title and thus per policy, deserves inclusion. "Steele dossier" as the COMMONNAME is established and is present in the title, but that same consensus cannot and should not negate policy-based reasoning for lede inclusion of other alternative titles. Assuming if anything was intended for headline-grabbing or not is not the prerogative of Wikipedia, our readers' best interests should be kept in mind first. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Nice seeing you stop by again, you seem to do that a lot lately. I think your numbers are wrong though. I get 63k with "Steele dossier" and 51k for "Trump dossier" and if you go with what he actually used "Trump–Russia dossier" it is 5k hits from google news. Next yes, the request move was on what the name of the article should be and what it is best known by. That is what consensus found, that "Trump–Russia dossier" was a poor title. Still is and is not a good also known as since it really is not also known as that. Since it is not a widely used title, it does not qualify under that MOS. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, but that means you'd be amenable to Trump dossier? I never denied Russia-Trump was a bad title (if you'll what read what I said again), I simply stated that it (or a variation) holds enough water to be included in the lede. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 19:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• If you read over our discussions above you will note that I disagree while giving examples why. Getting hits on Google news is simply not enough to qualify for that especially a POV title like that. Heck why not also known as Trump Pee Tape Dossier? It gets hits on google! Probably because it is a crappy POV title, much like this one. PackMecEng (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Moreover, if anything, it would be referenced as "formerly known as", but that title holds no such status, anymore than any of the other myriad of titles that flailed about before the provenance of the dossier was known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• The provenance was revealed the day after its existence became known to the public. Before that it was unknown to the public. The original title existed from January 13, 2017‎ until December 28, 2019, so the current title is relatively recent. That's how long it took for it to become the most frequently searched term. Our rules here would still justify using the old title, but we also chose to follow the most common usage, which is the case now.

Using "formerly known" would be a reference to Wikipedia's former title, and we don't do that here, hence the traditional "also known" mention, which is our traditional practice here. You are bucking long traditions and manual of style rules. -- Valjean (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• The provenance is still not fully known, though it recently has become far more complete. My searches show there was broad diversity in naming; there is no prime meridian where the name changes to the singular reference, rather, it was a progressive change from a multitude of titles as its provenance became increasingly understood and the slur titles have been displaced.Tachypaidia (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "provenance"? I thought you meant who is responsible for the creation of the dossier. We already learned that the day after BuzzFeed published it. Steele created it, and BuzzFeed is responsible for publishing it against the wishes of Steele. It should never have been published. It was supposed to undergo more investigation and revision before any type of publication, and even then, Steele had no intention for it to ever be published.

As far as the history of a "broad diversity" of names used by RS for the dossier, I totally agree. That is what happened. Here at Wikipedia, we followed policy and gave the article the most accurate and descriptive title imaginable.

This was the very first title, and that got tweaked: Donald Trump Russia dossier. -- Valjean (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

for possible inclusion

Barr/Graham enable dossier source to be exposed

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html

soibangla (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- Valjean (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)