Talk:Christopher Steele

Notability

WP:BLP1E. Widefox; talk 15:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Duplicate discussion - wrong location See Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Proposed_merge_with_Christopher_Steele Widefox; talk 23:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

All I have to say is "Hell Yes!!!" The only claim to notability is the involvement in the 2016 United States election interference by Russia. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I would also agree with trying to keep Steele's name/personal details out of the content if we could, but frankly he is now a public figure, for better or worse. Yvarta (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge. Yes, merge this content and leave a redirect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. The article now covers much more than the initial incident and is justified to exist as an independent article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• new merge request @BullRangifer: I think we should close the current merge request but open a new one to merge this article with Donald Trump Russia dossier. Please have a look, most of the content seems duplicated to me. And I would suggest a new title such as Trump opposition research dossier 2016 J mareeswaran (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree. This article can contain much more than is relevant there. There will be some duplication, but that which is most relevant at the other article should only be summarized here, and with a "main" link to that article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge This sort of situation is exactly what BLP1E was written for. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Investigations for FIFA, Litvinenko, might have been Russia desk chief for MI6. Lex Therumsdottir (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

*Merge I would really rather delete this article and not have a redirect, because of the nature of his work and possible danger to him in being a public figure. Unfortunately that train has left the station; he is publicly identified now, and even though it is a matter if WP:ONEEEVENT we can't undo the publicity he has gotten. But he should NOT have a separate article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC) I am going to copy this comment over to the other talk page, Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia#Proposed merge with Christopher Steele. I am striking it here so that I do not appear to be !voting twice. --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep or rename. I do not think he is a person notable for only one event based on info in references. However, if he is a person notable for one event, then the proper action would be to rename this page to the name of the event/subject, i.e. Donald Trump dossier. But I would rather "keep". He definitely looks as a notable person who revealed corruption in FIFA (see here) and was a key person in investigation of Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• different merge @My very best wishes: you have made out the perfect argument for merging this article with Donald Trump Russia dossier J mareeswaran (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep It appears that he was involved in a number of Russian-related issues. While the Trump dossier may be what brought him into prominence, the revelation of his involvement in other events meant that BLP1E cannot apply. Hzh (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment A substantial discussion has developed here, but actually the merger proposal at the top of the two articles directs discussion to Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia#Proposed merge with Christopher Steele. That is actually the most common practice, that a merge discussion is carried out on the talk page of the target article. I am going to copy my comment here over to that discussion, and others here might want to do the same. In any case I suggest that whoever closes this merge discussion should look both places before closing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. As the contents of the dossier are extremely inflammatory and currently unverifiable, I don't believe there's any way to tie it to 2016 United States election interference by Russia in a BLP-compatible way. The allegations don't just impugn Russia but also amount to unsubstantiated allegations of treason by Trump and his staff. Tread carefully. I agree with My very best wishes that this article should be moved to Donald Trump dossier based on WP:BLP1E, unless/until we find unrelated sources. Besides, we will inevitably need an article that covers dossier-related content not directly tied to Steele. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong place, discussion there

Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Proposed_merge_with_Christopher_Steele Widefox; talk 23:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Better target

That merger proposal seems to have been withdrawn. But there is now an article on the dossier itself: Donald Trump Russia dossier. That article is currently at AfD, but if it is kept, I am going to make a new merger proposal - that "Christopher Steele" be merged to it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Head of Russia desk

The sources - well, at least the Guardian - do say that he is "believed" to have been the head of the Russia desk [1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. That has been put back into the article, although it isn't in the lead. I am kind of skeptical that he would be head of the Russia desk with only two years working there, and no prior experience with MI6 other than in the UK and straight out of Cambridge prior to that. However, since The Guardian says it, I agree that we need to include it until we learn otherwise.--FeralOink (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Why was this fact deleted?! --87.159.114.72 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please, use your 'common sense'. Mr Steele served MI6 for almost two decades in Moscow. He did not started as head of Russia desk. Deleted, again?!--87.159.114.72 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

IP user, please read the article, with sources as well as the The Diplomatic Service List 1996 p. 235 and 1999 p. 297 (all cited in the article). According to MULTIPLE sources, including The Telegraph and The Diplomatic Service List, Steele graduated from Cambridge in 1986. He was recruited by MI6 and began work at FCO in London from 1987 to 1990. From 1990 to 1992, he was posted to Moscow. From 1993 to 1998, he was back in London at FCO. From 1998 to 2001, he was posted to Paris. From 2002 to 2009, he was back in London (with a brief time in Afghanistan in 2002, maybe 2003). This is a total of two years in Moscow. It is not 20 years in Moscow. NPOV sources describe Steele as head of the MI6 Russia desk, so I have included it in the article, though not in the lead, per Volunteer Marek's helpful suggestion. Please do not be so strident. I assure you that I am using my common sense!--FeralOink (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor from Bonn/IP User, based on this article, it seems that Steele was head of the MI6 Russia desk in London from 1993 to 1997, which is not 20 years.--FeralOink (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Gag order on British media

The British authorities had put out a gagging order on their domestic media preventing reporting about Christopher Steele. Why was this fact deleted?!--87.159.114.72 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Source? --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Steele&type=revision&diff=759867286&oldid=759845937 -- --87.159.114.72 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But, yeahh, never mind... User:Bradv just killed my additions ===> ″all based on reliable, published sources″: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Steele&type=revision&diff=760381270&oldid=760380868 -- --87.159.114.72 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be best if you were to propose those changes one at a time. Some of them were useful, but others were completely unsourced, which is a violation of our biographies of living persons policy. Bradv 17:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, the claim you just made above isn't technically correct according to the source given [2]. It wasn't a gag order—it was voluntary, and only enacted for a short time until US media released the name of the source. Bradv 17:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I used colloquial language in this talk pages (also known as discussion pages).

But the content in the article page read: "Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance, secretary of the Defense and Security Media Advisory Committee, issued a DSMA-Notice requesting the British press refrain from identifying Steele, to ensure Steele's personal security.<...>Adam, Karla (January 12, 2017). "This former British spy was identified as the Trump dossier source. Now he is in hiding". The Washington Post. While Steele's name was first published in the United States, the British media — not usually known for restraint — held off for several hours. In Britain, there is a long-standing tacit agreement between the government and media whereby the media receives a notice — known officially as a "Defense and Security Media Advisory Notice" — and agrees not to publish certain information relating to national security. The system has been in place for decades and is purely voluntary. The British media received such a notice last night, just after 6:30 p.m. local time. "In view of media stories alleging that a former SIS officer was the source of the information which allegedly compromises President-elect Donald Trump would you and your journalists please seek my advice before making public that name," wrote Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance, secretary of the Defense and Security Media Advisory Committee, the body that issued the media notice. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)<... />"

And you, Bradv, are now making false conclusion!! No, nothing I wrote was "unsourced", as I already wrote, it was ″all based on reliable, published sources″. His first wife Laura Katharine Hunt is dead, no violation of our biographies of living persons policy neither! --87.159.114.72 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor from Bonn, when you want to know why something was deleted, the first thing you do is go to the edit history, find the edit that deleted it, and review the edit summary. If that's not sufficient, then when you raise the issue on the talk page, identify the editor who deleted it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @DrFleischman:, I tried. But Bradv continues with his vandalism!--87.159.121.81 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And I see you've re-added all of it, completely ignoring the discussion here. As I requested, please make your changes one at a time, or discuss them here first. We need to verify these claims one at a time. Bradv 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What is your source for this text?

The veracity of the Trump dossier came under intense scrutiny, and journalists, as well as government officials, have called the allegations unverified. Moreover, misspellings are dotted throughout. For example, it refers to Alfa Group, a privately owned Russian-based financial investment firm, as “Alpha Group.” Such errors seem at odds with comments from intelligence professionals who have vouched for Steele’s professionalism.

Bradv 19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My "appreciation" for misspellings is considered "OR" (original research)? LOL What a pointless hostility aganst an IP. How about a little AGF? But since you apparently don't read anything unless it's handed and spoon fed to you on a silver platter:

-http://expertgazette.com/2017/01/16/usa-intelligence-agencies-leaked-phony-allegations-to-media/ : "Moreover, misspellings are dotted throughout"

-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-who-is-christopher-steele-man-behind-the-trump-dossier-perverted-sexual-acts-mi6-agent-a7524191.html

-http://www.itv.com/news/2017-01-12/hes-the-real-james-bond-colleague-of-former-british-spy-linked-to-trump-dossier-reveals: "Nigel West, an intelligence historian who worked alongside Chris Steele .... said the dossier on Mr Trump was "very low value in intelligence terms", "sloppily drafted" and is in effect "briefings on gossip that's been collected from sources" ... He said Mr Steele regarded the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin's regime as a kleptocracy, saying: "This was a government that was semi-criminal that was tainted in corruption."

-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4118096/Credibility-Donald-Trump-dirty-dossier-undermined-basic-errors-spelling-mistakes-claims-former-British-spy.html : "... other blunder seized on are several references to the 'Alpha Group' of companies, a consortium headed by oligarch Mikhail Fridman. The correct spelling which should have been known by a Russian expert is the 'Alfa Group.' 'At best that is careless and should not have been there,' the one-time officer said, 'it points towards that at least having been written by a Russian hand. 'If there are two such obvious mistakes are there others?,' he asked. A senior figure at a leading investigation firm was also damning: 'You would be more equivocal than this and there would be much more detail on the sources and the veracity of the material,' he said. 'There is no sense in the reports on how reliable the sourcing is, their background, where they obtained the information, what evidence there is to support the claim,' he added. 'Kompromat — compromising material — is readily available on the internet on all major political and business figures in Russia."

@Bradv: Do you have any further questions, or are we now done with talking? --87.159.121.81 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor from Bonn, the fact was not deleted that the British authorities had put out a gag order on releasing their former agent's identity. That sentence is in the article, and is sourced to this current news story: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/read/uk-asks-journalists-to-not-name-ex-agent-allegedly-behind-trump-report-d-notice In fact, the UK asked the press not to release this information TWICE about Steele, once in 1999 (along with 115 other agents) and again in 2017 (just with Steele). I admit that that sentence could be more clear in the article. However, there is now an AfD on the article, so I will wait a bit before making further additions.

Editor from Bonn, you have repeatedly removed the description of Steele as an ardent Socialist in the year prior to his recruitment by MI6, which was mentioned twice in Cambridge University publications, and a book about the Cambridge debate club, written by an alumni (alumnus?). All of this was sourced in the article, from current and historical publications, prior to your changes.

Editor from Bonn, you did not merely make additions. You significantly changed the existing language, and made deletions from the article. All of this is readily apparent through a version diff. I thank you, User:Bradv for reverting the changes until we could discuss further here.

Editor from Bonn: You used The Sun and some other UK press sources for some of the changes and additions you made. I don't have a problem with using those sources, but I do not know if we consider them "reliable, published sources", as The Sun is more of a tabloid.--FeralOink (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes, there were two D-Notice concerning Steele. With the first one in 1999, an attempt to suppress a list of 115 MI6 officers, Steele lost his cover ;-). The D-Notice, according to investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, drew even more attention to the list. (Read: http://www.duncancampbell.org/menu/journalism/guardian/cybersillies.pdf : "It was Monday May 10, when the eccentric US-based Executive Intelligence Review placed its latest report, 'The MI6 factor', on the internet. This contained the famous list of 115 MI6 officers, now so widely disseminated following a government D-notice drawing attention to it, that all foreign powers know who they are") And one D-Notice in 2017, that one was deleted.

I acknowledged that the 2017 D-Notice had been deleted erroneously, while the reference to the 1999 D-Notice remained, and said that I would address that now.

2. "ardent" is your wordding! The source is The Mirror, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/picture-ex-mi6-officer-chris-9607903, a tabloid.

Perhaps I should have used the phrases, "confirmed Socialist" and "avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials". Those are the terms used by two articles (article1 and article2) appearing in a Cambridge University student publication, and a book by Stephen Parkinson titled "Arena of Ambitions" (about the Cambridge Union, which is the school's debating society). All three of these are cited in the article should you choose to look. I did not source any of it from The Mirror.

3. What User:Bradv did is vandalism.

What User:Bradv did is not vandalism, but rather, a request to discuss the changes you made. It has been worthwhile for me, and I hope for you.

4. The Sun is the United Kingdom's biggest-selling daily newspaper and as much of a tabloid as Mirror or Daily Mail. Are we now deleting those references too? The reference from The Sun has already been deleted.

I was referring only to The Sun's reference to how much Steele supposedly earned from the investigation. That really isn't known and The Sun isn't the greatest source to use for that information, particularly if it doesn't appear elsewhere.

Some decisions here are highly arbitrary and even capricious. --87.156.234.131 (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe that decisions here are highly arbitrary or capricious. Some of the content you added was rather peripheral to the article, e.g. about Boris Johnson being at Oxford when Steele was at Cambridge, and that they did not know each other. Other additions possibly gave undue emphasis in certain parts of BLP. It was certainly worth a discussion and gaining consensus on the talk page. Anyway, we can wait until others weigh in, as the page is now under a minor level of edit protection (autoconfirmed users) and more important, it is the subject of an AfD (Article for Deletion) proposal.--FeralOink (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My edits were not vandalism. I asked you nicely, twice, not to continue to make wholesale edits without discussing on the talk page and gaining consensus first. Since you appear unwilling to do that, there doesn't seem much point in continuing this discussion. Bradv 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)