Talk:Steele dossier

Shearer dossier section?

The existence of Cody Shearer's dossier is getting more attention, and often in a manner which can confuse people into thinking it's part of this dossier, or a follow-up. I'm not sure there's enough of a story for its own article....yet. It's also part of right-wing conspiracy theories fueled by Nunes.

To prevent confusion and debunk conspiracy theories, and since it is nearly always mentioned in connection with this dossier (Steele did pass it on to the State Department), it deserves mention here in its own section. If it gets more coverage, we can then split it off into its own article. Right now it's a part of reality which deserves a home at Wikipedia, and this seems like a logical location.

Some sources:

• Second Trump-Russia dossier being assessed by FBI

• There's a second Trump-Russia dossier

• Nunes Now Planning to Shower America With Memos

• GOP puts Sidney Blumenthal in spotlight

• Devin Nunes is investigating me. Here's the truth.

• GOP Focuses on Russia Allegations That Reached Steele

• Congressional Russia investigators interested in 2nd Trump-Russia dossier

• An operative with ties to the Democratic Party has reportedly been crisscrossing Eastern Europe for months looking for dirt on Trump

• Devin Nunes' Next Memo Could Revive Old Scandals to Obscure Russia Probe

Opinions? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I think there is enough here for a separate section. Reviewing the references: The January 30 Guardian report [2] was the original source and seems to be the basis for other stories; Vox, Mother Jones, and Esquire do not add any new information or independent confirmation, and the Esquire piece is highly opinionated. Additional info from CNN: Republican claims about how the dossier got to Steele. Additional info from WaPo op-ed by Jonathan Winer: confirming that he got the Shearer notes from Blumenthal and passed them to Steele (this is a primary source but valuable IMO). Business Insider confirms Shearer was searching Eastern Europe for dirt on Trump - in other words that his information is independently sourced from Steele’s. The ABC report says the Shearer info is mainly about the sexual allegations and that videos exist in several places. (Israel? How in the world would info like that get from Russia to Israel? That makes me inclined to doubt the whole thing but I guess the FBI is at least looking at it.) Someplace (forget where) said it is raw notes, six pages long, more of a memo than a dossier but that’s what people are calling it. I’d be inclined to skip the ABC, Vox, Mother Jones, and Esquire references and use the others. A section of one to two paragraphs seems to be in order. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not directly on this subject, but the author was allegedly included in a hit list by the FSB [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Cohen in Prague

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html

Seems important.Casprings (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Having a private meeting regarding pay off to a hacker is totally ridiculous. Hackers always remain anonymous and have been taking payment in bitcoin.Phmoreno (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, try to avoid WP:FORUM. We're discussing RS coverage relevant to a major charge in this article.

My initial impulse when I found and posted the link above was to warn to be cautious and wait for more RS coverage, per NOTNEWS, but now this is blowing up all over the news. TV and major sources are covering it because of its significance. I haven't checked Fox News. They are probably playing something with panda bears and ignoring the story, or, since everyone else is covering it, they'll smother it in spin. A search finds no current coverage from them.

Cohen was very vehement in his denials. To keep your search relevant to this article, use at least these search terms: michael cohen prague dossier. Have fun and bring back what you find from the major RS. Also, this is still too early for content changes, but we may be able to add something very soon. McClatchy is a very RS, but we also need the most major sources, like New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, BBC. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Reuters is mentioning McClatchy's report. That's big, as they are international. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is obviously significant and relevant, and should be covered in this article. More sources:

• Why the question of whether Michael Cohen visited Prague is massively important for Donald Trump, Vox
• Mueller can prove Cohen made secret trip to Prague before the election: report, The Hill
• Michael Cohen Has Been Under Criminal Investigation for Months, Feds Reveal, The Daily Beast

- MrX 🖋 11:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump Attorney Lied About Prague Trip, Mueller Investigation Reveals, as New Evidence Comes to Light, Newsweek

Sources: Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier, McClatchy

• "If Cohen met with Russians and hackers in Prague as described in the dossier, it would provide perhaps the most compelling evidence to date that the Russians and Trump campaign aides were collaborating."

I'm still a bit concerned that The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and BBC haven't mentioned this, AFAIK. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure they will within the next 24-48 hours. We can wait until one or both of them pick it up.- MrX 🖋 17:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

RECENTISM...and here I am again agreeing with MrX...we should know something soon. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

...and agreeing with me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Now covered by The Washington Post: Michael Cohen’s visiting Prague would be a huge development in the Russia investigation, as well as several other news orgs.- MrX 🖋 20:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Quote: "But this contradiction between a clear allegation from the Steele dossier and the assertion that it wasn’t true by Cohen and Trump helped drive the idea that the dossier was broadly discredited shortly after its release. Pick out the Prague trip and nothing that follows could have happened. Put the Prague trip back into the mix? A lot of the other parts of that allegation now become possible. What’s more, it undermines the credibility of those who insisted that the claim was completely without merit." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A renewed denial: Trump lawyer Michael Cohen denies traveling to Prague, CBS News -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Special counsel has evidence Michael Cohen travelled to Prague-McClatchy, The New York Times (duplication of Reuters) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I accept that there is WP:NORUSH but we do not need to wait for New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, BBC etc or any other "major source". If something is reliably sourced then feel free to include it straight away. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding material now. The story will probably evolve quite a bit starting on Monday.- MrX 🖋 23:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Mueller has evidence Michael Cohen traveled to Prague, report claims, The Guardian -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple RS are needed for such an extraordinary claim. While it may well be true, we still have our obligations to NPOV, NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Source list, with refs

Main article: Michael Cohen (lawyer)

Feel free to add more sources to the bottom and I'll format the references. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sources: Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier, McClatchy

• Special counsel has evidence Michael Cohen traveled to Prague: McClatchy, Reuters

• Michael Cohen’s visiting Prague would be a huge development in the Russia investigation, The Washington Post

• Special counsel has evidence Michael Cohen travelled to Prague-McClatchy, The New York Times (duplication of Reuters)

• Mueller has evidence Michael Cohen traveled to Prague, report claims, The Guardian (duplication of Reuters)

• Why the question of whether Michael Cohen visited Prague is massively important for Donald Trump, Vox

• Mueller can prove Cohen made secret trip to Prague before the election: report, The Hill

• Michael Cohen Has Been Under Criminal Investigation for Months, Feds Reveal, The Daily Beast

• Trump Attorney Lied About Prague Trip, Mueller Investigation Reveals, as New Evidence Comes to Light, Newsweek

• Michael Cohen, Once the President’s Trusted Fixer, Emerges as His Greatest Liability, Mother Jones

• Mueller may have evidence corroborating a key dossier allegation about Michael Cohen and Russian collusion, Business Insider

Renewed denial

• Trump lawyer Michael Cohen denies traveling to Prague, CBS News

• Trump's personal lawyer denies report of Prague meeting with Russians during campaign, Politico

• Trump lawyer Cohen denies media report of Prague trip, Reuters

Sources

Why did Mueller refer the case to an entirely different law enforcement agency? See Real Clear Politics, the NYTimes, and WaPo. There is still too much up in the air, which makes it speculation; therefore, noncompliant with NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The Cohen connection: Next steps

I would like to begin working on text about the Cohen connection as discussed above. Currently, it looks like it would best fit under DNC email hack, leaks, and misinformation, but I'm wondering if it should have its own section, and if so, where?- MrX 🖋 15:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could fit there. Is it a different allegation from the dossier which has been discussed in RS, or are you suggesting enlarging the existing content there? Otherwise, maybe the "Denials of specific claims" section? There we have content which is related to the allegations, but not appropriate for addition to the allegations section. Depending on how that section grows, we may end up having to give it a better name or splitting some content off into a new section.

We could even create a section for a cast of characters and put/move relevant content there.

Go ahead and start developing something. That will make the decision easier. Don't let the existing format force the content or cramp your style. You're good at this. Let the RS dictate the content, and we can fit it in somewhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OK.- MrX 🖋 15:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

First draft

Michael Cohen's office, home, and hotel were raided by FBI agents acting under a federal search warrant in mid-April 2018. A few days later, McClatchy reported that Robert Mueller's investigators were in possession of evidence that Cohen travelled to Prague in August or September 2016, which would bolster similar claims in 3 of the dossier's 17 reports. According to McClatchy's confidential sources, Cohen travelled to Prague via Germany, a passage which would not have required use of a passport. In reaction, Cohen denied having ever been to Prague, as he had done in his January 2017 denial following the dossier's release.

Sources

Thoughts?- MrX 🖋 16:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. Let's see what others think, and also about placement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL - at least wait until after today's hearing. Read the CBS Report. And here is another from NYTimes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in the text above predicts or projects any outcome, or other future event. If you're going to cite policy, at least demonstrate a scintilla of understanding of what the policy actually says.- MrX 🖋 17:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Casprings and Emir of Wikipedia for their comments on the proposed text.- MrX 🖋 18:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm uncertain what the source is for "3 of the dossier's 17 reports". Offhand, this seems to be a WP:SYN claim, that should be backed up with a direct citation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • We don't need to wait for a hearing if we have reliable sources, but I would also like to know the source for the claim about "3 of the dossier's 17 reports". We are not some OR scoreboard for if this dossier is right or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: Third paragraph of the Washington Post article.- MrX 🖋 19:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

...and Emir of Wikipedia - MrX 🖋 19:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the WaPo source should be moved up to maintain source-content integrity. The second sentence does not strictly require three sources, so I would leave the WaPo off that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for highlighting that. The source has the disclaimer "but we hasten to note that these allegations have not been confirmed by The Washington Post." I think we need to be careful with how we word this, but something along the lines of your draft should be included. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was the intention of "... which would...". I guess we could add "if true", although I think it's implicit in the current wording.- MrX 🖋 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, this got interesting. More interesting, I mean.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, another piece of the puzzle falls into place. - MrX 🖋 19:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

What you're saying in essence when you say "puzzle" is that instead of writing an encyclopedic article, you are hoping all pieces will form a puzzle which is SYNTH and OR using RS as pieces to the puzzle. Not good. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Spot on, Atsme. That's exactly what's going on here: editors acting like detectives or investigative reporters. Which is the very definition of OR and SYNTH. Which is most certainly against policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

instead of writing an encyclopedic article, you are hoping… Atsme, please assume GF and avoid casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

In all the hilarious Hannity hoopla, it's been over looked that the judge rejected Cohen's lawyers' restraining order [4].Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• MrX, just for completeness, here is what we already have on this subject in the "Denials of specific claims" section:

On April 13, 2018, McClatchy reported that the Mueller investigation had evidence that Cohen visited Prague in August or early September 2016 by traveling through Germany. The following day, Cohen again denied he has "ever been to Prague".

Maybe some can be salvaged and merged or not. Your "first draft" above might be a good replacement. It covers the subject more thoroughly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Mueller's spokesperson warned about what some in the media have been publishing: [5] “What I have been telling all reporters is that many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate,” the Mueller spokesperson said." What other sources say about the statement: Business Insider, Daily Caller. Good advice. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Mueller's spokesperson was referring to stories (tales?) in The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, and Business Insider. That would actually make some sense.- MrX 🖋 12:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done - I have incorporated the proposed text with the requested modifications.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm of the mind that this addition is noncompliant with NOTNEWS & RECENTISM. Other editors have questioned it as too soon...and that tells me you need consensus - not just 2 editors making such decisions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: CNN report indicates that the Cohen raid had nothing to do with the Trump-Russia probe. There's also the Stormy storm. Adding this info now as an attempt to validate the Steele dossier is speculation. There are also sources that warn about misinformation. If anything, the probe will lead to financial inproprieties, which has nothing to do with the Steele dossier or Russia. Wait until something is confirmed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That the raid was ostensibly for another purpose is irrelevant. Other editors suggested that it was too soon when it was too soon. Given the increasing, highly reliable sources, too soon is so yesterday. It should not have been removed. O3000 (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, and have already cited the relevant PAGs. It is rather far-fetched speculation at best. And it's based on what evidence...a primary source that claims Mueller has proof? There is nothing I can find that verifies Mueller has ever released any information about his investigation. This over-inflated article appears more like an attempt to justify the unsubstantiated allegations in the dossier. Worse yet, nothing of substance has been confirmed about the raid, and no one knows why Mueller handed over the Cohen investigation to NY prosecutors. The fact that it is not part of the Mueller probe into Trump-Russia collusion speaks volumes. Sorry, but my perception of this article is that it's one big conspiracy theory because it is based on unsubstantiated allegations, speculation and rumor. Trump has not been charged with anything except "guilt by association". ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to say Atsme, this does look like you're the only one with problem with this material. We have shown numerous sources which highlight the relevance of the Cohen raid with this subject. Pack your PAGs and get onboard. This train is leaving the station! 🚂 - MrX 🖋 14:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to say that Atsme is not the only one with a problem over the proposed content. I see WP:OR and a lot of WP:SYNTH happening here along with tone and specific syntax that leads a reader to a conclusion. That's not writing an encyclopedia, that's writing biased news story. We aren't news and we don't parrot news agencies just because they said something. When will the agenda-driven anti-Trump editors start applying some common sense at these articles and write truly encyclopedic content, is what I'm wondering. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, per my comment above about the methodology used in creating this article, I am trying to decide how best to handle it in light of the multiple policy vios of OR & SYNTH. Rather than disturb the "nest", I will simply suggest that the project will be better served with the Cohen information included somewhere else - perhaps his BLP if you think it won't be removed because of the questionable sources. What you're attempting to do here is "piece together the puzzle" you spoke about above, and that is not how encyclopedia's are built. That is how conspiracy theories are proven. You also need to keep in mind that NPOV cannot be superceded by editor consensus. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the "methodology used in creating this article". That has been explained in painstaking detail, so don't speculate about it. Really, some of your previous speculations have been outright alternative facts, and ignored the written and detailed description. The "puzzle" is composed of the pieces found in RS. We do not know what the picture will end up looking like, so all we can do is find puzzle pieces (RS which deal with the subject), and document them. This is not the creation of the puzzle, but the documentation of the pieces. The final puzzle picture will be known much better when the investigation provides even more pieces, and we will faithfully document them. There may or may not end up being a harmonious picture. I actually doubt it.

In the mean time, we do not concern ourselves with the final picture, especially based on any of our preconceived notions or political leanings, and we ALL have them. I repeat, we don't now what it will look like. The only way we can even connect pieces is when the RS do the synthesis for us, and they often do. Fortunately we can place some pieces in immediate proximity to each other, because they are on the same topic, and RS place them there, but often that's as far as we are allowed to go.

Using a puzzle to illustrate this is somewhat useful, but also misleading, because some of our pieces are malleable, based on following events. They literally change shape to accommodate better understanding, and that's why Wikipedia's articles are supposed to be updated. We do not, ever, wait for the picture to be fully formed before we start documenting the pieces. We begin to document the pieces as they arrive. (BTW, this "puzzle" talk has no resemblance to any previous description about the "methodology used in creating this article".)

If there has been any improper synthesis or OR, provide specific examples at the time you mention it. NEVER speak of SYNTH or OR without specific and fixable examples. This vague mention of acronyms is unhelpful and proves nothing. When you wave policy flags, provide specific examples at the time, otherwise they are just your way of saying IDONTLIKEIT, and we ignore it. Seriously. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to restore challenged content

I really thought we had consensus, but I would like to formalize it in light of Atsme's challenge of the material.

Cohen's office, home, and hotel were raided by FBI agents acting under a federal search warrant in mid-April 2018. A few days later, McClatchy reported that Mueller investigation was in possession of evidence that Cohen travelled to Prague in August or September 2016. If true, the report bolsters similar claims in 3 of the dossier's 17 reports. According to McClatchy's confidential sources, Cohen travelled to Prague via Germany, a passage which would not have required use of a passport. In reaction, Cohen denied having ever been to Prague, as he had done in his January 2017 denial following the dossier's release.

Sources

 Question: Should this content be in the article? Pinging recent editors BullRangifer, Sławomir Biały, Volunteer Marek, Emir of Wikipedia, Objective3000, and Casprings. - MrX 🖋 14:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Adding a few more - Politrukki, Factchecker atyourservice ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC) We shan't forget Mr Ernie and SPECIFICO- MrX 🖋 15:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per my arguments throughout this section. Recentism is not a policy, and WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because this is not routine coverage.- MrX 🖋 14:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Support - Significant coverage in RS. Relevant to the article as it supports claims in multiple parts of the oft challenged dossier. Neutrally stated – includes Cohen denials. All the bases are covered. O3000 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

   Include but eliminate the first sentence (about the raid) and eliminate "a few days later", replacing it with "On April 13, 2018". The current paragraph implies a connection between the raid and the information, and that is not justified. The sources don’t make that connection, and neither should we. In fact I heard one of the reporters who broke this story interviewed on TV last night, and he said they have been gathering information about this for several months. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Changing my mind, see discussion.

   MelanieN. The connection is explicitly made by some of the sources (Reuters, 6th graf; CBS News) in that the raid resulted, at least in part, from a referral from Mueller. My wording is not intended to establish cause and effect, but the two events do have a close temporal relationship noted by several sources.- MrX 🖋 15:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, the Cohen raid resulted from a referral from Mueller. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here: we are discussing the report that Cohen went to Prague. When we say the report came out a few days after the raid, we are implying that the report is based on some information seized in the Cohen raid. That appears to be incorrect. (In fact I don't think prosecutors have even looked at any of that information yet; they are still arguing about attorney client privilege.) We should remove any mention of the Cohen raid from this item about Cohen going to Prague. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

   MelanieN is right about the raid. It is unnecessary to mention it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

3. Include how can this be excluded, after all the discussion on this page about whether parts of the Dossier have been corroborated by other evidence? Significant and well-sourced and relevant. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Support. Some of the reasons for exclusion are nonsensical. WP:TOOSOON is about whether to have an article about a subject, not whether to discuss recent news in relation to a developing story. WP:NOTNEWS actually undercuts exclusion arguments: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." The exceptions listed clearly do not apply here. It is significant that the dossier alleges a trip to Prague, that Cohen has denied this allegation to the House intelligence committe, and that news reports allege that Mueller has evidence contradicting Cohen's account. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

   I disagree with the position on exclusion based on BLP articulated below. WP:NPOV seems clear on this: the dossier made an (unproven) allegation, which Cohen denies. McClatchy's sources allege that Mueller has evidence to the contrary. To cover this neutrally, we include a description of the allegation, Cohen's denial, and the reported existence of evidence contradicting Cohen's account. BLP and NPOV mandate that Wikipedia not take a position on the veracity of these items. But, since these details are now widely reported, per WP:WELLKNOWN: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

   In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources And that is what we are lacking: instead of a multitude of sources - that is, of INDEPENDENT sources - we have one source, which all the other stories are based on. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, and we have a multitude of reliable sources citing the McClatchy report. That amply establishes WP:WEIGHT in this context, and we can with no violation say "McClatchy reported that..." couched in appropriately neutral language. Cohen's denial, too, is not an INDEPENDENT source. When we have independent sources that offer conflicting accounts, we do our best to summarize those sources. I do not believe that it is consistent with the spirit of maintaining a neutral point of view to privilege information in which the subject of a BLP appears favorably to that in which he or she appears unfavorably, other things being equal (e.g., WP:WEIGHT). Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

   What I am concerned with, and I'm not sure if MelanieN is saying the same thing, is making such a potentially damaging and incriminating statement about a person with only one source that claims to have "two sources familiar with the matter" saying Cohen went to Prague. The claim remains unverified by any other source (reliable or otherwise). WP:NOHURRY applies. There is no reason to rush this news report into the article, when the other option on the table is to remain prudent and exert caution when including a claim of this nature, when the target of the report has strongly denied the news report. Other sources have referred to the original report, but in my view that doesn't add extra credence to the validity of the McClatchy article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

   This is why it is attributed, rather than stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

5. Support It's actually ridiculous to try and exclude info which is DIRECTLY pertinent to the topic. Crying "Not news!" or "Recent!" is doubly ridiculous and bad faithed since if we go by this logic we couldn't include ANY developments about the dossier in the article. I could go and remove - err, 'scuse me "challenge" - the entire section "Use in the FBI's Russia investigation" or "Nunes memo" section because that too is "Not news!!" "Recent!!". EVERYTHING in this article is going to be fairly recent and newsworthy. Shameless, POV driven WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT weaselly WP:AGENDA !votes. And frankly, some of these "Oppose" !votes are borderline incoherent (and putting up the freakin' Daily Caller as counter source to this??? Come on people, at least pretend to have some standards).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
6. Support. This is a clear cut case when something simply must be included per WP:NPOV. And remember that WP:NPOV is our main non-negotiable policy. It overrides WP:Consensus here, whatever it might be. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
7. Support Direct relevance to the article. To exclude would provide POV.Casprings (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
8. Support restoration. This is highly relevant material that has been covered extensively in the media, making headlines in many papers. It is important to keep this page up to date. Editors above do a quite sufficient job in explaining why, really, none the arguments for why should not be in the article hold water.--Calthinus (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

   Support; the wording directly attributes the statement, and the publication that the wording attributes it to (McClatchy) is generally perceived as reliable so there is no problem in that department. GreyGoose (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

9. Rewrite – I don't think the news coverage is as significant as some have said, at least when we look at the papers of record. The New York Times has republished two Reuters articles. The Washington Post has published two blog posts, a Q & A, and one editorial analysis. The Wall Street Journal has completely ignored the report. This is very much a borderline case.
   If the report is to be mentioned, the material should be rewritten. (a) The raid should not be mentioned. McClatchy indicates it is irrelevant: "The raid was unrelated to the Trump-Russia collusion probe". (b) "confidential sources" – Wot? Why not just say "two sources familiar with the matter" (McClatchy) or "two unnamed sources" (Reuters)? (c) Source #2 is an editorial analysis that should be attributed in-text per NEWSORG. (d) Something should be said right away about what the two sources familiar with the matter were not familiar with: notably whether Cohen actually met anyone. Politrukki (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC); added mention of Q & A 05:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per Atsme as well as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:TOOSOON. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose per my argument above. There is no verifiable evidence. Not all incidents and/or speculation, even when published in RS, is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia per NOTNEWS. McClatchy attributes their article (primary source) to "two sources familiar with the matter" which is questionable at best...nice for baitclick, but nothing more. The Cohen investigation is not even part of the Mueller probe - it was turned over by Mueller to NY law enforcement because (according to CNN) it's about Cohen's financial investments in a taxi company. It has nothing to do with the Steele dossier.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 15:08, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose this should remain out until it doesn't look and smell like a conspiracy theory.--MONGO 16:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose Not confirmed and no indication of what the evidence is.Phmoreno (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose until more information is available. Right now this only summarizes what one news agency is reporting and is not very encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
6. Oppose For the reasons listed above. McClatchy is still the only newsorg claiming to have confirmed this information. Now we have this: [6]. A Special Counsel's office spokesperson warns the Daily Caller that "many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate. Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it." This statement comes after being questioned about the Cohen-Prague pandemonium specifically. Seems like good advice for both journalists and Wikipedia editors. WP:NOTNEWS. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
7. Oppose, is it really too much to ask, that we wait until Mueller ends his investigation? GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
8. Oppose We should avoid speculation until actual facts are known. MelanieN also makes a good point below in regards to sourcing on BLP topics. PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
9. Oppose A single report from anonymous sources is not sufficient for BLP claims. Wait for independent verification. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

   Comment: The proposed text states "Cohen travelled to Prague via Germany, a passage which would not have required use of a passport" which I believe is correct as the Czech Republic is part of Schengen, but wouldn't travel into Germany have required a passport? James J. Lambden (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

10. Oppose Not enough evidence of BLP claims.--Piznajko (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
11. Oppose As I said below, we should not include this unless it is reported by two independent sources - because it accuses Cohen of repeatedly lying about this, and a serious allegation like that requires two reliable sources per BLP policy. There has still not been a second independent report; it's still just McClatchy, and all the other news reports are based on McClatchy. If and when we get a second such report I will support including it. Since we do not have a second source, we should continue to leave it out IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
12. Oppose: Melanie's rationale is persuasive. And correct. Obviously WP:REDFLAG is applicable. As everyone knows it says "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." One source is insufficient. Period. Other sources that pickup the story do not count toward "multiple." Hey everybody... my first edit to the infamous Dossier. I'm playing with the big boys now. Sorry, big girls too. Or should that be significant girls? Well, you know what I mean.– Lionel^(talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Ok. Let's see. Take'em one by one:

Winkelvi - "WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT" - everything in this article is recent and news worthy. Singling out this particular piece of info sorta betrays that this is just an excuse for an WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT !vote. Atsme - "no verifiable evidence" - what is that suppose to be? And that's not the standard for inclusion, whatever that's suppose to mean. The standard for inclusion is whether or not it's in the sources. ALL sources attribute their sources. MONGO - "remain out until it doesn't look and smell like a conspiracy theory" - not your call to make. Not sure when you were made Wikipedia's sniffer-in-chief. All that matters is whether it's covered by sources. Come on, you know this! Phmoreno - I can't even understand what that is suppose to mean. Mr Ernie - borderline reasonable so I'll leave it alone.

Shameful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Singling out...Shameful"

Singling out editors and literally attacking them with insults because of their !votes is shameful. Talk about a perfect example of "I don't like it". All your comments here serve to accomplish is starting a brawl. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms (esp. valid ones) are not insults.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, if they were valid. Sometimes we all need to refresh our memories by re-reading relevant policies. In this case, starting with NOTNEWS, NEWSORG, and RECENTISM wouldn't hurt any of us. I recommend reading slowly. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You know I've already addressed that like four times already, right? Maybe if you read my comments above... slowly. To reiterate - everything in this article is newsworthy and everything in this article is fairly recent. This article exists. Get used to it and accept it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad my vote has been deemed "borderline reasonable," but where can I apply for a position as a Wikipedia sniffer? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr Ernie...it depends on what you intend to sniff. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have struck out my "include" vote above; consider me neutral-borderline-opposed opposed since there is still no second confirmation. The reason is that by including this (even with the qualifier "if true") we are calling Cohen a liar - possibly a liar under oath. To make this kind of assertion against a living person we should have two independent sources, and we don't. If some source comes out with independent confirmation we should definitely include it. Until then I think we should probably leave it out. I still do say that we should remove any reference to the Cohen investigation. The proposed version implies that the counsel got this information from the Cohen raid, and that is not only not supported by the source, it is highly unlikely - bordering impossible. The special counsel wasn't part of this raid, and the office that did carry it out hasn't even begun to look at the material they got; it's all pending court review. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN is right about the raid. It is unnecessary to mention it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Good catch, MelanieN. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s a good point. But, there have been innumerable suggestions on this TP, and in the press, that Steele is a liar. How under NPOV and BLP can we exclude one side? O3000 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What we say on this TP is irrelevant. Neither NPOV nor BLP applies, at least not strictly; we are free to propose things and discuss things that aren't necessarily going to wind up in the article. What matters is what we say in the article, and we don't say there that Steele is a liar. Nor should we imply that Cohen is. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

While we are allowed to discuss, often what we discuss is a reflection of what is in the media, reliable and unreliable. The article provides several criticisms of the dossier, which is all well and good. Just want to make certain that we consider inclusion of the supporting sources. Obviously correct handling of NPOV can be difficult in such an article. We need to apply BLP to both Steele and those that would attack or support him.O3000 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC).

• I'm curious why this: "Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____ " is being seen as acceptable as this section's header/title. It's quite non-standard, and the name was removed at the request of Atsme because she correctly pointed out that putting the name of an editor in a talk page header is against policy/guidelines. I know I've seen somewhere before at a noticeboard somewhere, more than once, where a policy or guideline was named as anti-naming editors in headers. Can't put my finger on what the policy or guideline is, but I know that I've seen admins and long-term editor admonish and name some policy/guideline when they've removed the name and turned the header into a neutral, just-the-facts-ma'am kind of title. I changed it, it was reverted. What purpose does it serve or point does it prove to have the header remain as unnecessarily non-standard in its current state? Shouldn't it be more standard and per TPG/MOS? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

All fixed - for those who may be curious about the guideine, see WP:TALKNEW. ^{Thanks to Mandruss for pointing it out in a different discussion. Atsme📞📧} 00:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it fixed? Regardless, I'm thankful to Mandruss for knowing what elusive policy was being referred to. I knew it existed (and not just in my imagination). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi, Atsme, MONGO, Phmoreno, Mr Ernie, Mr. Daniel Plainview, MelanieN, GoodDay, PackMecEng, James J. Lambden, and Piznajko: Do you oppose this proposal specifically or mentioning the McClatchy report generally? This is what the article says right now: "McClatchy reported that the Mueller investigation had evidence that Cohen visited Prague in August or early September 2016 by traveling through Germany." Politrukki (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I will have to reexamine the coverage. Your Rewrite vote identifies sources I was not aware of. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My thinking is that the raid should be mentioned briefly less the speculation by McClatchy - but if mentioned, make it known that it is unconfirmed and that a warning by Mueller's spokesperson was issued following McClatchy's report. It's still NOTNEWS, so I'm hesitant to support its inclusion. The raid occurred but we don't know why. My editorial judgement tells me to exercise caution - WP has no deadline; therefore, our priorities should be getting the article right. If we must include speculation and opinion simply because it was published in RS, then it should be included using in-text attribution - without editorializing. Provide only the facts, dispassionate tone...NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki: Exactly what Atsme said. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you mention the raid? The main issue is whether the possible evidence of Cohen being in Prague should be mentioned at all. The raid is just a sidetrack. Is there any indication that Mueller's spokesperson's warning is directly related to McClatchy's report? What if we keep the current content and add something along the lines of "Journalist Andrew Prokop said the report "could still prove to be mistaken", but [reason why this is important] ..., citing Vox? Politrukki (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bingo! You are correct on both points. There is no evidence the raid is connected with the McClatchy report, nor is there any evidence that there is any connection with the warning. Neither should be mentioned. The mention of the McClatchy report should be kept short, much as it is now. Some minor tweaks might be in order, but it shouldn't balloon. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki - Good point...I was trying to compromise which caused me to stray off-track a bit. There's no evidence it's connected, no reason to include any of it since it's pure speculation all the way around. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding about the so-called papers of record; using a web search (from April 13 onwards) I found the following:

• The Washington Post has published an editorial analysis (that also says "but we hasten to note that these allegations have not been confirmed by The Washington Post"). One, two blog posts, and a Q & A (Eugene Robinson says "McClatchy is a first-rate news organization", but thinks it would stupid for Cohen to lie about visiting Prague). One, two in-house news articles mention the Cohen and Prague, but not the McClatchy report.
• The New York Times has republished one, two Reuters articles. One, two in-house news articles that mention Cohen and Prague, but not the McClatchy report.
• The Wall Street Journal has published one article that mentions the dossier and Prague, but nothing about the McClatchy report. In January 2017, WSJ reported that the FBI had not found any evidence of Cohen visiting Czech Republic. WSJ has reiterated the same point several times, previously in September.

My conclusion is that papers of record have provided some coverage, but no in-house reporting. But that is only one possible viewpoint. Politrukki (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Having reviewed the sources you list in your Rewrite vote I see all attribute the claim to McClatchy. Of the sources you list above that I've examined all attribute the claim to either McClatchy or Steele. If there are any that don't please let me know. Otherwise my position is the same – the McClatchy report shouldn't be mentioned until we have corroboration. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Got it. McClatchy is the only news outlet with own sourcing. Sorry if I misled you. Politrukki (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Simple misunderstanding and (in my defense) not surprising given the length and format of this discussion. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to remove the existing reference to McClatchy from the article

Right now we have a second paragraph in the "Michael Cohen" subsection which says, On April 13, 2018, McClatchy reported that the Mueller investigation had evidence that Cohen visited Prague in August or early September 2016 by traveling through Germany.[98] The following day, Cohen again denied he has "ever been to Prague".[109][110] I propose to remove the McClatchy reference, and to add to the first paragraph the single sentence Cohen denies he has ever been to Prague. (All we say now is that he "denies the allegation" and names other places where he was during parts of that time; we need to include his more sweeping denial.) My reasoning is spelled out in the section above: I oppose any mention of the McClatchy article because no other news outlet has corroborated it; McClatchy is still the only news outlet making that claim. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I support this. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this because McClatchy is a RS and no assertion is being made that their report is necessarily correct. By the reasoning that no other RS has corroborated their report, countless other references throughout WP would need to be removed. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

To make my position clear, were this not a BLP claim a single reputable source would be sufficient. I don't believe the claim itself is a BLP violation but BLP is a factor in my vote to exclude. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Soibangla, certainly we are able to use information that has only a single source - but not to report negative information about a living person. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the (negative) allegation or incident, leave it out." Negative information or allegations about a living person have a higher bar. In this case, the negative allegation is that Cohen was lying. At least that's my take. YMMV. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if it weren't a BLP it would be a WP:EXCEPTIONAL issue because the claim is important, and while multiple agencies have repeated this item, WaPo caveated the report by saying they had not separately corroborated it. In any event I would think the not-newspaper thing is especially relevant went the claim isn't even firmly reported. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible earlier interest in Trump

The "Possible earlier interest in Trump" section needs a better location, as it's not strictly part of the allegations. Any ideas? Can it be incorporated into an existing section? It's only one paragraph. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Mayer on Wikileaks

I'm removing the following content:

Main articles: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Democratic National Committee cyber attacks

Mayer agrees with Steele that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks cooperated to release the stolen DNC emails, as stated by the U.S. Intelligence Community. On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to prevent Clinton from winning the presidency. Three U.S intelligence agencies concluded that people with direct ties to the Kremlin had sent hacked emails from the DNC to WikiLeaks.

References

Everything that follows the Mayer citation (#1) fails WP:NOR, one way or another. Either these sources don't mention the dossier – which is unsurprising as they were published before there was public knowledge of its existence – or the claims fail verification. The Time article is supposed to verify something that happened in December 2016 even though it was published in July 2016. "people with direct ties to the Kremlin" is even more problematic because the cited source says the opposite.

The Washington Post:

intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin "directing" the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were "one step" removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees.

Other sources I was able to find are consistent with the U.S. official's statement.

Comey's March testimony:

SCHIFF: This is a question I think you can answer. Do you know whether the Russian intelligence service has dealt directly with WikiLeaks or whether they too used an intermediary?
COMEY: We assessed they used some kind of cutout. They didn't deal directly with WikiLeaks. In contrast to D.C. Leaks and Guccifer 2.0.

Telegraph (about Comey's March testimony)

Mr Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee, asked Mr Comey if Russia had direct dealings with Wikileaks.
Mr Comey responded: "We assess they used some kind of cut out. They didn’t deal directly with Wikileaks."

CBS News (about Comey's March testimony)

Comey said that the U.S. believes Russian intelligence used some kind of "cut-out" in dealing with WikiLeaks.

Vox

Days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks releases 19,000 Democratic National Convention emails provided by "Guccifer 2.0" — a hacker who we later learn was a cut-out, or intermediary, for Russian intelligence.

Bloomberg

The report by U.S. intelligence agencies says Russia’s General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, gave the material to WikiLeaks through an intermediary.

CNN

US intelligence has said the Podesta emails were stolen by Russia and handed over to WikiLeaks through an intermediary.

Mayer's assertion "Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together to release the D.N.C.'s e-mails" (per the source, while removed content says "Kremlin and WikiLeaks cooperated to release the stolen DNC emails) is unsubstantiated and I don't remember seeing anyone claiming that WikiLeaks was directly in contact with Russian intelligence services. At least after Comey testimony. In light of reporting in reliable sources, I would leave this section out unless there is some evidence of direct contact. Politrukki (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• To the contrary, the text about the connections between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence and propaganda must be expanded. But yes, it also needs to be better sourced and possibly described in more detail on other pages. Sourcing is not a problem. That was widely published. For example, CBS tells:

According to the the widely circulated January 2017 U.S. intelligence report detailing interference in the 2016 election, U.S. intelligence officials believe with "high confidence" that there is a connection between Russian military intelligence and the entities Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks that resulted in the deluge of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's associates hitting the Internet in the weeks ahead of the election. Clinton recently called WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a "tool of Russian intelligence," and current CIA Director Mike Pompeo has dubbed it a "hostile intelligence service." ... The Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks," the report said."

And so on. Here, here, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of direct connection. Please show a quote that you think proves a direct connection. Remember for example that the ODNI report you cited came before, not after, Comey's public testimony to Congress, in which Comey mentioned the detail about "cut outs". If Comey's testimony has been seriously contested, I would like to know. But this is only for assessing how controversial Mayer's claim is. Any (hypothetical) additional material should be based on reliable sources that directly mention both Wikileaks and the dossier or, like you said, the material may belong to another article. Politrukki (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, the only direct connection to Russia that is verifiable and clearly evident is the connection between Steele and the Russian spies who provided the contents of his dossier on Trump. That is the only "statement of fact" that we can feel confident about publishing. Assange has repeatedly denied the allegations that the Kremlin was involved in the leaks. Several high-ups in the FBI have been fired or demoted, and there are ongoing criminal investigations. We need to stick to verifiable statements of fact and not get carried away with the conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated allegations that appear to be politically motivated. Our encyclopedia should not be used to support political disputes, or base entire articles on nothing more than speculation and journalistic opinion. Certainly it's fine to add a paragraph or two using in-text attribution to whoever is making such a claim, but when unsubstantiated allegations comprise the bulk of the article, we're getting into conspiracy theory territory and that is what concerns me most. Please let's not do that to our pedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Parts of dossier "proven" false?

The only source I see that asserts parts of the dossier have been proven false is this from December 2017, which has been referenced in the article:

Certain parts of the dossier have either been confirmed or proven false

The source does not state what was proven false, but it's likely to be the assertion that Cohen met Russians in Praque, which Cohen "disproved" by showing his passport to Buzzfeed, revealing no Czech Republic stamp. Republicans assert this as "proof" here, but they omit this qualifying information from the source they cite:

Cohen’s passport would not show any record of a visit to Prague if he entered the EU through Italy, traveled to the Czech Republic, and then returned to his point of EU entry. A congressional official said the issue is “still active” for investigators.

And a few days ago we got this:

The Justice Department special counsel has evidence that Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and confidant, Michael Cohen, secretly made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

which discusses how Cohen could've entered the Czech Republic indirectly via a Schengen Area country.

Also, I have found The Hill to have a spotty track record and a seeming reluctance to issue corrections. I tend to avoid relying on them unless another source confirms their reports. So unless someone can provide another source that specifies what has been proven false, and that has not been contradicted, I recommend that this article not assert that anything in the dossier has been proven false.soibangla (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about The Hill. They can be shoddy and careless, sometimes with reports which are extreme left-, and more often extreme right-wing blog type "news" reports. That's not right. If it's an opinion article, that's fine, and we might use it and attribute it as such, but it shouldn't be confused with news reporting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Cohen's denial isn't worth much at all. It's full of holes, and rich people can travel all over the world in private jets with no record at all. Only the flight, but not the passengers, are recorded. Trump traveled to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow on a friends jet, with no record. If he hadn't shown his face, we wouldn't have known. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've traveled across borders in Europe by car without even coming to a full stop, much less showing a passport. And I'm not rich.:) O3000 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Same here. My passport shows far fewer countries than I've visited after the Schengen Treaty went into effect. It made traveling so much easier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No collusion. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

At this moment nothing in the text of the wiki article says that anything has been proven false. I agree that that The Hill citation should be removed as inaccurate (it doesn't even remotely back up that claim), since there already is an accurate citation to the sentence it cites. GreyGoose (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The only things "false" are a few typos, and no one in their right mind considers such things as "false". So one could say minor errors, but we'd need RS for that. Thus it's better to not use sources which are wrong. I tend to agree with GreyGoose that The Hill citation can be removed until actual evidence is provided by a RS, and then we can use that source and mention the false information. "Unproven" is not "false". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Even the things that have been called out as supposed typos are possibly not actually typos. "Alfa" being spelled "Alpha" by Steele is simply another transliteration from Russian. If you research closely, it's fairly obvious that some of the lesser companies in that group (owned or indirectly controlled by Fridman, Aven, and Khan) are still called "Alpha", even in their official UK/US names. Russian names (company names and people's names) generally have a variety of transliterations. GreyGoose (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

SDNY court filing: The sum and substance of Mr. Muravnik's Report and his deposition is that the "best way to render the name . . . in English" is as "Alpha Bank," rather than "Alfa Bank." soibangla (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Even the things that have been called out as supposed typos are possibly not actually typos." – That might be true, but several reliable disagree with you.

1. Buzzfeed says the misspelling is a clear error.
2. The Independent implies that it is a "clear factual error".
3. Vanity Fair says "the repeated misspelling of the name of Alfa Bank—the largest privately owned commercial bank in Russia—as “Alpha Bank” does little to reinforce the report’s unsubstantiated charges of the bank’s illicit cash payoffs".
4. Newsweek says "there are several places where the author seems weirdly ignorant of basic facts about Russia. He or she refers to Alpha Bank rather than Alfa ... The author also misspells the name of Trump associate and Azeri real estate mogul Aras Agalarov.

All examples are from sources that are cited in the article. Politrukki (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Using the common spelling of the word 'alpha' does not 'prove anything false', it merely shows a missed detail or 'spellcheck' is working a little too well. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an "error" per reliable sources. I've seen some sources (don't remember which and how many, maybe one or two) say that misspellings are (I'm paraphrasing) insignificant, but I don't remember seeing any source suggesting misspellings are not errors. Politrukki (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Such are certainly minor errors. Note that two of those sources were writing on the same day as the release of the dossier, and one two days later. One no longer hears of them as errors, except fringe sources which want to exaggerate such minor things into clear evidence of some massive attempt to perpetuate falsehoods. They are hardly worth mentioning, and definitely don't come close to the proven direct contacts by myriad Trump campaign people with Russians, and to the multiple charges filed, arrests made, and convictions. That's serious business. Convictions and confessions are in a different league than minor typos. Trump's own campaign officials are flipping on him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In another article, by different writers, The Hill writes "Some of the allegations appear to have been debunked, like a claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen travelled to Prague during the election to meet with a Russian official." [7] Frankly, I have no idea whether The Hill still considers the claim about Michael Cohen apparently debunked, but clearly that was not the only claim that appears to be debunked.

Is ABC News cited in our article a reliable source? They write "The infamous 'dossier' alleging collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian government is filled with inflammatory, uncorroborated and in some cases clearly false claims made by unidentified sources". What "false claims" refers to here is not explained, but in another article they say "ABC News was able to debunk some references to him in the unverified document, such as the assertion in the that his Ukrainian-born father-in-law had a vacation home, or dacha, near Russian President Vladimir Putin’s."

Has the allegation about Barvikha been rebunked (see [8], [9])?

The Washington Post has debunked at least one allegation: "we do know that the Podesta emails were obtained through a phishing attempt, not by leveraging botnets, porn or bugs".

The BBC has commented the Newsweek article cited in our article as such: "Newsweek says it 'contains lots of Kremlin-related gossip' and points to factual errors and the misspelling of Russian names." Politrukki (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Elsewhere on WP: During the Soviet era, Barvikha was known as the site of the most desirable state dachas for government officials and leading intellectuals, and many of Russia's wealthiest individuals have built private luxury dachas here since the late 1990s soibangla (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded, as that sentence is preceded by "Some examples are provided that don’t seem to be related to what happened to 2016" soibangla (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek specifically says Aras Agalarov was misspelled as Araz, but WP says it's the Azerbaijani spelling: Araz İsgəndər oğlu Ağalarov soibangla (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(a) Wikipedia is not a reliable source and I don't see what the content you cited is supposed to prove. (b) That's not what The Washington Post says: you have mixed July and December reports. (c) Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (and there's no citation for Azerbaijani spelling). You are also cherry picking one part of the name from Azerbaijani spelling and another from English transliteration. Do you have any reliable sources that contradict the sources I mentioned? Politrukki (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by using the next ref and its wording. No need to use a source which was inaccurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The Hill is a perfectly acceptable source for content in this article. Buzzfeed, not so much. No RS is above making an error from time to time, including the NYTimes and WaPo. A different topic - suggested reading: Argument from ignorance - I just read it, hurt my head...read it again despite the fog filling the empty spaces...applied it to the proving something false argument here, and well...read the article and draw your own conclusions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Amen! Many of those initiallly "ignorant claims" of "error" and debunking were made on the same day and days immediately after the dossier was released. There was a shock-and-awe sense of (ignorant) disbelief at the time. Critics were many, as ignorant criticism is cheap. Now, after so much has been confirmed, and myriad Trump campaign members who lied repeatedly about their many suspicious direct contacts with Russians have been charged, confessed, convicted, and are flipping on Trump...well, now we aren't so ignorant anymore. The argument from ignorance worked in the beginning, but now only for those who depend on unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Now, after so much has been confirmed,... what are you referring to, BR? The only thing I'm aware of that has been confirmed is the Russia to Russia communication. Please provide diffs to whatever else has been confirmed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if you actually read the article and its sources for once. Start with Trump–Russia dossier#Veracity of certain allegations.

Then follow RS, rather than the spin on Fox News and other unreliable sources, which ignore or downplay the lies about myriad suspicious direct contacts and secret meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russians, the official charges and indictments of those people, their confessions, their convictions, and some are flipping on Trump.

That all contradicts Trump's denials of "collusion", and confirms the dossier's allegation of "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." For God's sake, Manafort has been charged, and a "Former Trump Aide Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy Against the United States". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an explanation why at least four sources (one of them is actually from March) that make these "ignorant claims" are cited in our article? Has someone proved them wrong? Here's a part of coverage from January 2018:

1. "BuzzFeed posted the unredacted documents just 10 days before Trump’s inauguration, with a warning that the contents contained errors and were 'unverified and potentially unverifiable'." – The Guardian
2. "BuzzFeed published the dossier in January 2017, noting that the allegations were unverified and the report contained errors." – Politico
3. "BuzzFeed published the dossier last January, noting at the time that allegations in the document were unverified and contained errors." – HuffPost
4. "Buzzfeed's article also highlighted what it said were several outright errors in the document." – NBC News
5. "BuzzFeed published the 35-page document in its entirety in January 2017, noting that the 'allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors'" – ABC News
6. "Buzzfeed published the 35-page document in January 2017, along with a caution that its 'allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.'" – Times of Israel
7. "Buzzfeed eventually published all the documents in early 2017, while noting that they contained errors." – news.com.au

I don't see any policy-based reason why "contained errors" should not be mentioned in the body and lead, regardless of whether individual editors think the errors are significant or not.

The ABC News report (that debunked some of allegations related to Cohen), another one that says "some cases clearly false claims", and The Washington Post analysis I previously cited in this discussion were published in May, January 2018, and October, respectively. Have they been contradicted? Politrukki (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My very quick response (I have to leave) is that these mentions of BuzzFeeds original comments change nothing. They are just history. They are just documenting the statements made in January 2017. Even in 200 years, they would still be nothing more than a historical record. They say nothing about the current state of affairs. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Politrukki: if you'll pardon the interjection, I think it's pretty clear that by calling these claims "ignorant", etc., Bull's goal is to insult editors who talk about the claims, and get them to shut up, lest he launch into his speech about "Putin, RT, Sputnik, Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Townhall, Drudge Report, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.", similar to the way he is just now berating Atsme above for what he imagines to be her views and reading habits. Factchecker_atyourservice 05:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Factchecker_atyourservice, I'm sure Politrukki won't mind the interjection, but I take issue with the tone of it. I'll drop an NPA template on your talk page (since not assuming good faith and ascribing motives is an example of a personal attack). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead - 3rd paragraph

The statement, Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others "remain unverified" is misleading, and uses SYNTH to make the corroboration appear to be something it's not. That particular sentence was cherrypicked from passing mention in an article that focused primarily on Trump's tweeted denials and criticisms of the FBI, then ventures off to Obamacare. The WaPo article states: Trump began his day criticizing the FBI and claiming that the now-famous dossier containing allegations about his connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin during the 2016 election is a "pile of garbage." The actual corroborated information is in the cited CNN article which clearly states: For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier.... The article further explains: None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The only corroboration according to officials involves intelligence intercepts confirming that ...some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier... The 3rd paragraph needs to be fixed. I suggest shortening and rewriting to satisfy DUE and NPOV and include actual statements of fact without the editorializing and SYNTH. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Atsme. We have to be very careful to make sure we match policies and guidelines here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. The sentence Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others "remain unverified" seems to be correct, according to the sources you quote. Some allegations (about meetings) have been corroborated. Others have not. In what sense is this misleading or SYNTH? --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

See the more complex example in WP:SYNTH which actually demonstrates in their example something very similar except the sentences are reversed. The example states (my underline) "the first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute". In our article, it isn't until later in the paragraph that a single source, CNN, refers to and clearly defines which allegations are corroborated, and not the more general (misleading) statement that "some allegations have been corroborated". The isolated sentence at the beginning of our paragraph does that by citing a different source in order to make such a general statement without naming the specific corroborated allegations, which may lead readers to believe that some of the Trump collusion allegations may have been corroborated based on the context of this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess we can write "some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, but not the existence of the pee tape" if that is the concern here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the "salacious" allegation hasn't been confirmed yet, unlike many other allegations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rewording #1

Suggested change: The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution, whereas Trump has denounced the report as "a pile of garbage". In February 2017, some of the conversations between foreign nationals were corroborated to have taken place "between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", but none of the information relating to the salacious allegations has been corroborated. (cite CNN) I chose to use Trump's own words as they reflect his lack of PC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is well established consensus. Please view RFC here . WP:DROPTHESTICK.Casprings (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Casprings - Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. In this particular case, the first sentence was recently changed. However, it requires more change to be policy compliant. Not my fault, but the only corroborated allegation in the dossier relates to Russian officials talking to Russians, and that is how it should be presented. Getting to that point took a lot of time to corroborate which is why RECENTISM is an issue, and why it's better to exercise patience and let these things incubate so we don't have to keep going back and updating the information. Oh, and btw - editor consensus doesn't override NPOV policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence already IS policy compliant. It is not SYNTH, as the very sources you quote demonstrate. What the hell does "DUE" have to do with anything? Once again you are just randomly throwing out Wikipedia policy acronyms hoping something will stick, where as the actual motivation is a straightforward WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And yes, this has been discussed to death and it really is time to drop the stick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're suggesting that for the article text - not the lede? We could discuss it for the text, but it is way too detailed for the lede. The lede summarizes the situation in a single sentence, as it should, and does it well. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) VM, I've provided evidence, and have explained my position to you multiple times. Your rebuttal is unconvincing. Please provide something far more substantive than accusations of IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's time for you to DROPTHESTICK, and stop beating up on editors who are trying their best to improve this article. BTW - valid arguments actually cite substantive PAGs that support their position as I have done - not just PAs against an editor you clearly oppose. If you cannot offer a legitimate rebuttal to my argument without resorting to PAs, please do not address me at all. We do have a civility requirement here.

Melanie - it is for the lead - see the section title. The body can provide more details. Perhaps an RfC is in order? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you have not. You've just repeated stuff that's been said, and shot down, many times before. That's why this is just another waste of time you've created.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And Casprings already sited the relevant Wikipedia acronym. DROP. THE. STICK. There was an RfC on the matter for monkey's sake.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

^^^WP:BATTLEGROUND^^^ - I will not partake. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

^^^^^ Atsme, one of the many problems with your edits on Wikipedia is that what you say and what you do are two completely different things. YOU started this. Pointing out that the matter has already been discussed is NOT "battleground". Bringing up same stuff over and over and over again in order to try and force your way IS "battleground" behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This proposed text is unsuitable for the lede. Per our guideline, WP:Lede, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Briefly summarize. Not lay out the whole case for one small aspect of the subject. If you do start an RfC over your proposed text - which I don't recommend; an RfC is supposed to be for when there is genuine disagreement on the page, not when one party disagrees with everyone else - I predict everyone will say "not in the lede, discuss it for the text if you want." --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, you said...We could discuss it for the text, but it is way too detailed for the lede. I've provided a side by side so you can see that it's the current text that is way too detailed, not my proposed changes. All I did was eliminate the editorializing: ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Current text

Proposed text

Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others "remain unverified".[11] Some claims may require access to classified information for verification.[12] The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution, while Trump himself denounced the report as "fake news". In February 2017, some details related to conversations "solely between foreign nationals" were independently verified. Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. The conversations "took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", giving US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of parts of the document.[13]

The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution, whereas Trump has denounced the report as "a pile of garbage". In February 2017, some of the conversations between foreign nationals were corroborated to have taken place "between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", but none of the information relating to the salacious allegations has been corroborated. (cite CNN)

Wait - you lost me. Are you now proposing your new wording to replace the TEXT content? So you want to end the current discussion, in which you are arguing to put it in the lede in place of the current lede sentence? That's what the section title says, and that's what you have consistently said. If you are done with that idea, please say so. Then we can start a discussion about whether to put it in the article text instead - if that is really what you are suggesting. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - it appears my use of current text is different from yours. I used Current text and Proposed text for the column headers in the table. In the column Current text is the last paragraph of the lead now. In the column Proposed text is my proposed text to replace the 3rd paragraph of the lead. My proposal has always been about the lead, not the body text. The details are already in the body text in the section Reputation in the U.S. intelligence community. That paragraph begins...On February 10, 2017,... Are we on the same page, yet? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, hello? You made the argument that the text in the lead needed to be simple and short per BullRangifer's agreement with you in his opposition vote below - but as evidenced by the table, the simple and short is the proposed text, not the current text that it's in the lead. Please weigh-in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

You confused me by saying “text”. I use that word to mean the article text, as opposed to the lede; you used it to mean the text, i.e., wording, of the lede. OK, I think I finally understand you. The changes you want to make: 1) You entirely remove from that third paragraph the first two sentences - Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others "remain unverified".[11] Some claims may require access to classified information for verification.[12]. 2) You keep the sentence about treating with caution (with slight rewording). 3) You remove the sentence Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump.. And 4) You delete the last part of the last sentence, namely giving US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of parts of the document.[13] and replace it with the very specific disclaimer none of the information relating to the salacious allegations has been corroborated. (cite CNN). Have I got that right now? After I get your confirmation that these are the specific changes you are proposing, I will respond. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Basically, yes...but I am open to tweaking as long as it doesn't become the heavily weighted, lengthy paragraph that we had prior to this discussion. If we stick to statements of fact in lieu of editorialized speculation, our readers will be far better served to know what has or hasn't been verified, not what might be/could be/should be verified. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll respond below, possibly tomorrow. (I have hardly been online at all this week - just busy in RL.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose change. The current content in the lede is perfectly fine. Per MelanieN, we really should keep it simple and short. Details belong in the body. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support The current text is ambiguous. We should not say "some ... have been corroborated" without explaining which. Page's share in an energy company, the "pee tape"? A reader doesn't know without reading the entirety of the body. Atsme's version is specific. Additionally, the conversations between foreign nationals "heavily involved" in efforts to "damage Clinton and help Trump" is cited to a single CNN piece. This seems significant enough that most sources would have reported it. Are there other citations? James J. Lambden (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this specific change; that's too drastic of a rewrite for one very specific concern. Suggest instead simply changing the first sentence to 'Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others, including its more salacious claims, remain unverified." or words to that effect. This is a simple five-word addition that clarifies the situation fairly accurately. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support The purposed change above. @BullRangifer: since the change has been clarified after you had voted would you be interested in changing your vote since it has addressed your concerns? Keeps the lead even shorter and more to the point while keeping unneeded details in the body. Those last three sentences of the current paragraph are way to awkward. PackMecEng (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose — Here's how I'd write it:

Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents, the media and most independent intelligence experts have approached it with caution, while Trump and his supporters have denounced it as wholly false. Some of the dossier claims may not be publicly verifiable because they require access to classified information. CNN reported on February 10, 2017 that American investigators verified some of the dossier details related to conversations between Russian nationals, some of whom were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. No other aspects of the dossier have yet been publicly verified or disproven. soibangla (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Vox, during the fall of 2016, the dossier circulated in the media but news organizations largely failed to verify any of its key claims. To say they had "difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents" is editorializing unless you're quoting using in-text attribution. It also implies that the allegations may be true, and to that I refer editors to the application of sound editorial judgement - see Copi's quote in Evidence of absence, In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95 ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Would "Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying or disproving the dossier contents..." allay your concerns? That would neatly dovetail with the closing sentence. soibangla (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not that simple, and is in fact nearly always BS during a criminal investigation. We KNOW that Mueller is not revealing all the available (and coming) evidence, so the public absence of evidence is obviously not evidence of absence, Logic 101. At least be honest about that and don't imply otherwise. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that. Ever piece of information to date that has been remotely negative has been leaked, sometimes within hours of it being discovered. There is not reason to think they are holding some big bombshell close to the chest at this point. Even RS are starting to move on from Mueller as having nothing much on Trump himself. PackMecEng (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Either BullRangifer or PackMecEng could be write, but these are both just speculation. We follow the RSs, currently they have not revealed that Mueller has hidden some big bombshell do we don't include it for now but if it and is related to the Dossier then we should include it here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

BR, it actually is that simple. We need to steer clear of conspiratorial theorizing. The fact that Mueller is keeping his investigation under wraps is exactly why we should not be editorializing content published in opinion columns, analysis, and/or commentary. In-text attribution is required if the material is considered to be worthy of inclusion. I refer back to our policies: NOTNEWS, NPOV, DUE, BALANCE and OR. Garbage in is still garbage out, and my primary concern is focused on sound editorial judgement to maintain the quality and integrity of our pedia. I can't justify inclusion of speculative material in an opinion piece. Having said that, I realize that I am a lone pebble on the beach and consensus makes the final determination...as long as editor consensus doesn't attempt to supersede NPOV. It is what it is - there is no deadline - let the allegations incubate and keep RECENTISM in mind. Simple. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla, you asked above...Would "Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying or disproving the dossier contents..." allay your concerns? Well, it begs the question, who had difficulty publicly verifying the allegations? Was it the FBI who wanted to verify it publicly? Who attempted to disprove the dossier's contents? It leads to editorializing when we should be stating facts in a dispassionate tone. What we do know is evidenced in multiple RS - the bulk of the allegations remain unsubstantiated - and the reason for that, is quite simply...we don't know, yet. It may change in the near future...but until then, predictions/speculation makes us noncompliant with CRYSTALBALL, so the best option is to wait until the investigation actually proves whatever it is they need to prove. It doesn't appear to be Trump collusion (which isn't a crime)...lots of questions still left unanswered. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"who had difficulty publicly verifying the allegations?" Anyone, for any reason, by any means. There is no "they" or motives stated or implied here. This is an evolving current event, so readers come to the article now to discover where the matter stands now, and at some point in the future this article will become strictly an historical document. Until then, we need to dispassionately explain where we are at any given point, and I think my edit accomplishes that. I think you're reading into the edit implications that simply aren't there. soibangla (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's OR, and it is noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How is it OR? As someone else previously noted, you appear to have a tendency to toss out every WP rule you can think of in the hope that something will stick. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

^^WP:BATTLEGROUND - I no longer wish to discuss this with you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

PROPOSAL: I recommend this language be adopted for paragraph #3 of the article:

Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents, the media and most independent intelligence analysts have approached it with caution, while Trump and his supporters have denounced it as wholly false. Some of the dossier claims may not be publicly verifiable because they require access to classified information. CNN reported on February 10, 2017 that American investigators verified some of the dossier details related to conversations between Russian nationals, some of whom were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. No other aspects of the dossier have yet been publicly verified or disproven. soibangla (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla - starting another proposal while one has only been active for a couple of days is highly disruptive behavior - I recommend that you self-revert. MelanieN, it appears you have taken this editor under your wing - please advise him/her. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We disagree. If you would like another editor to advise me, please address your comment to that editor. I no longer wish to discuss anything with you. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Greasy Granola, Atsme! The second proposal is an improvement that builds on the first to make an even more succinct and neutral statement. I like this alternative TWO. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Changing to an arbitrary break with the proposed rewrite by Soibangla. I believe Atsme is correct, another proposal is a tad disruptive, especially since it's only a few days old, but more importantly because so many have already voiced their opinions on the previous proposal. If we end up with no-consensus in a few days time, then maybe we can start an actual RfC with three possibilities. For now, though, to not cause confusion and to not encourage disruption, I think we should stick with the two choices. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"so many have already voiced their opinions on the previous proposal" over a 72+ hour period, and the issue remains, at best, deadlocked. 126 page watchers have visited recent edits of this TP. I suggest this issue has been adequately discussed, and because it represents a primary linchpin of the article, we should move to a prompt resolution. soibangla (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

RfCs go up to 30 days. Why is this different? It's not a BLP, so we aren't risking a policy issue in that manner -- what's the rush? There's no deadline in Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"BLP others" still applies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus that the current language is inadequate, and the first proposed revision does not appear to reach consensus. Because the dossier is now among the hottest topics of the day, readers come to the article now with one key question: is the dossier true? I believe my proposed edit is better than the current language, it is an accurate and succinct summary of what is now known, and we can improve it later as new developments warrant. IMO, this issue could have and should have been resolved months ago, as there has been no further illumination on the dossier's veracity since the CNN report of over a year ago. soibangla (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Let’s talk a minute about process. I had labeled Soibangla’s proposal as Proposal #2, but someone overruled that because of their impression that we are only allowed to have one proposal at a time. I disagree with that. I personally think our best and most productive discussions result from a process where the text is discussed and modified through discussion, rather than what appears to be the current approach - “this is the proposal, either support or oppose it exactly as written,” then do the same with another proposal, then another, until we finally refine it over a period of weeks or months, to something that either finds approval or is accepted by default through editor exhaustion. IMO that is not good procedure, but that is how this thread has evolved. Meanwhile, Soibangla is incorrect in saying “There appears to be a consensus that the current language is inadequate.” In this thread I see four people (five counting myself although I haven’t specifically said so) who think the current text is OK, and four who want to change it.

Anyhow, at some point it will become clear that Atsme’s proposed rewording does not have consensus. At that point I would like to throw it open to general discussion, rather than another take-it-or-leave-it, support-or-oppose-as-is suggestion. If people are OK with that approach I will propose as a starting point a synthesis of the current text, using some aspects of each proposal’s suggested changes. I would keep the current text, with the following changes, and maybe others that come up as this discussion continues:

• With regard to Atsme’s proposed changes: I do not agree with removing the first sentence, but I would be OK with removing the second sentence Some claims may require access to classified information for verification.[12]. I also agree with removing the fourth sentence Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. I disagree with her other rewordings. In particular I oppose specifically saying that “the salacious allegations” have not been confirmed, since we have actually not mentioned those allegations in the lede up to that point. If people really want to mention this, I would use Aquillion’s suggested modification of the first sentence, Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others, including its more salacious claims, remain unverified.”
• With regard to soibangla’s proposed changes, I like their first sentence Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents, the media and most independent intelligence analysts have approached it with caution, while Trump and his supporters have denounced it as wholly false. better than what we have now, and I like their later modification “publicly verifying or disproving”. I would leave out the second sentence, as I said with regard to Atsme’s proposal; it’s kind of argumentative and it is implied already in “difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents.” Right now I don't think the rest of their proposal improves on the current paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A reader will read "Because of the difficulty in publicly verifying the dossier contents" and wonder "why is there difficulty?" which is answered in the next sentence: "Some of the dossier claims may not be publicly verifiable because they require access to classified information." soibangla (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about coming up with an editor-written characterization if it differs markedly from what lots of RS say. The sources generally describe the dossier as unverified, or mostly so and we should track that. Sorry if I missed it, but is there sourcing that says the media and analyst caution is due to the inability to publicly verify the allegations, as opposed to verifying them at all? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The dossier was circulating among the media for weeks/months prior to the election, but no one reported it because they couldn't confirm it with public sources and had no access to classified sources. Also see paragraph on John Sipher in this article. soibangla (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theories section for the conspiracy theories?

Should we have a section which outlines the basic conspiracy theories which run contrary to the RS documentation? They dispute:

1. That the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump win,
2. That the dossier is a serious piece of research which has been partially corroborated.
3. That numerous Trump campaign members, including Don Jr, held many secret meetings with Russians and lied about it repeatedly.
4. That they actively sought and accepted help and information from Russians working to discredit Clinton and help Trump.
5. That several Trump campaign members and friends, including Don Jr, were in direct contact with Wikileaks.
6. That the over 100 charges filed, confessions provided, and convictions obtained, are just.
7. That the Nunes memo has been debunked.
8. That Nunes has acted as an agent of Russian interests.
9. That the GOP leadership are compromised and complicit because they knew that the Russians were interfering in the election, but McConnell ordered the gang of eight to stay silent and allow it to happen.
10. That the investigations on Trump and Co. are not a witch hunt, but the legitimate exposure of a series of self-inflicted wounds.
11. That the FBI and intelligence agencies are doing their job to protect America from an attack on its electoral system, infrastructure, and democracy itself.
12. That Trump is counteracting their efforts by demonizing and obstructing them.
13. That Trump is attacking the very idea of truth and undermining a free press.
14. That.....(please add other elements).

As an exercise, let's outline the basic elements in the conspiracy theory (actually cover-up and gaslighting by the Trump administration). Help by adding any elements I've left out.

1. That the Russians did not hack the DNC and that it was an inside job.
2. That Seth Rich was murdered by Clinton people to silence him.
3. That the dossier is fake and without any basis in reality.
4. That Steele is a paid hack who will do anything for money.
5. That the Nunes memo is the accurate version of events.
6. That the investigations on Trump and Co. are a witch hunt.
7. That the FBI and intelligence agencies are corrupt and part of a deep state plot against Trump.
8. That.....(please add other elements).

The sources which push this view are unreliable sources like Trump, Putin, RT, Sputnik, Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Townhall, Drudge Report, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. We obviously can't directly cite most of them, but we can cite Trump and Fox News, and actual RS which do mention this conspiracy theory. Atsme and other editors here who hold this fringe view would probably love to provide sourcing which we can consider.

I'm really wondering if we should do this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What sources do you have? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't quite understand your question...please clarify. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to read the sources before we create some section about fringe theories and/or conspiracy theories. Also Fox was not deemed as unreliable at the latest RS discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238#Fox_News_reliability_RfC, someone claiming that this is unreliable could come across as a biased and POV pushing editor who is against the mission of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Also Fox was not deemed as unreliable at the latest RS discussion" - ummm, the link you provide just shows that there's no consensus as to whether it's reliable or unreliable. The position that is unreliable does not indicate "bias" or POV pushing (frankly, it rather would show good judgement).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same RFC? Because the one listed by a 2:1 margin said it should not be treated any differently than other RS. Though it was withdrawn in less than half a day after the direction it was going became clear. (It shouldn't of been withdrawn imo, but here we are). PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

First, the actual RSN discussion is here. Note that many of the editors who discussed it there were not even aware of this RfC (I certainly wasn't). Second, like you said, it was withdrawn in less than half a day, which might have something to do with it. It's impossible to conclude any kind of consensus based on that. Third, not the "oppose" !votes claim that "it should not be treated any differently than other RS". At least two or three are procedural.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is not consensus since it was withdrawn so early, I was just confused when you said closed no consensus. Also several of the support votes were certainly, if I may use your catch phrase, WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well. Kind of balances out there. I would someday like to vote on a properly worded RFC to put an end to all this Fox stuff one way or another. I know like every source it is case by case ect, but general community consensus on stuff like that is helpful at times. PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The list of items is missing a lot of evidence in the public domain that cast all sorts of doubts on the dossier and the whole Russia collusion narrative. Kim Dotcom claimed he was present when Seth Rich downloaded the files from the DNC. Dotcom offered to testify before Mueller, but was never contacted to do so. Former NAS director William Binney claims NSA could not trace data packets from supposed hack and also that download speeds of the data exceeded what would be expected in a remote hack. The case of corruption inside the FBI is under investigation by Huber as lead prosecutor. We already know here was fabricated evidence, such as the Trump server communicating with Alfa Bank. Alfa Bank asked the Justice Dept. to investigate and unmask a hacker believed to be located in the U.S. The story was pushed by a Clinton supporter who was sent a letter by Alfa Bank to preserve records. Also, Comey failed to tell Trump who paid for the dossier, then remained silent throughout the time Congress was trying to uncover who did. Several Obama administration officials were referred for criminal investigation in this letter, a few in connection with the conspiracy. There are also sources showing Nunes repeatedly requesting the intelligence leading to the Trump campaign counterintelligence investigation, which he finally got to see. This resulted in his claim that no official intelligence was used to start the investigation. The House Intelligence Committee is continuing their investigation. I have pages of references for all of this.Phmoreno (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

"Kim Dotcom claimed he was present when Seth Rich downloaded the files from the DNC." - you serious??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Kim Dotcom has a long history of frauds and is currently a fugitive. What next? O3000 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What about Alexander Downer of the George Papadopoulos meeting at Kensington Wine Room being involved in this: Aussie Complaints Headed to FBI on Clinton Foundation’s Dealings Down Under Phmoreno (talk) 00:53, April 24, 2018‎ (UTC)

Lifezette is not a RS. Please stick to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Inspector General Horowitz is scheduled to testify before Congress on May 8, possibly meaning his long awaited report will be released before than. Sources say the report contains explosive revelations.Phmoreno (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, I trust you have numerous sources, but are they RS, the kind we can use here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

At this point in time it is too close to the Inspector General's report for me to be spending much time on this. Huber has been a special prosecutor for about 5 months now and the investigation has been very secretive. We probably won't know much more until a grand jury is convened. Phmoreno (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be written by critters with no more than 2 legs and published under a reputable imprimatur. Sounds like you're showing nothing like that. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Given your absurd claims and conspiracy theories you're spouting above, I seriously doubt it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, "it is too close to the Inspector General's report" has no bearing on whether you have RS which can be used to create a section which documents the conspiracy theories which sow doubt on the dossier, among other things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

For god's sake, I'm giving all of you a real chance to document your conspiracy theories. If you can't do it without using unreliable sources, then your failure proves they are not true and not notable enough to be included here, and you should also stop advocating them on talk pages. Sheesh! Please, please, please make a serious effort to find RS to use. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm of the mind that if we simply add a section, Corroborated allegations, (provided there will be more than 2 or 3 sentences), readers can figure out the rest on their own. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• We have such a section called "Veracity of certain allegations", that happens to undermine your conspiracy theories. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• The main article for this is Deep state in the United States. No need to clutter this article with baseless conspiracy theories and speculation. We should stick to what RS say about the dossier. However, if a certain conspiracy theory surrounding the dossier has garnered significant coverage, then it should at least be mentioned here with proper context. ^Falling_Gravity 16:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Falling, I understand and largely agree. I just threw up a number of points, but not all of them are directly related to the dossier. It is those which would be relevant here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• No

1. Reliable sources report conflicting information. Many sources say the Russians only wanted to cause chaos and discord, paying for anti-Trump social media ads and organizing anti-Trump rallies.
2. "Serious [opposition] research" (sorry for the scare quotes) is not filled with false and defamatory claims, similar to Alex Jones' "serious research" into Pizzagate.
3. Meeting with someone who was born in Russia and lying about it is not in itself notable, other than the media meltdown that immediately followed.
4. Somewhat notable, though to a lesser extent than Clinton and the DNC not only sought help and information from the Russians, but paid for that information as well.
5. Only notable if the communications were nefarious or illegal in nature. I couldn't find any sources that show this is the case.
6. Wikipedia isn't the arbiter of justice, making claims as to whether any convictions unrelated to the election (such as tax fraud, money laundering, etc.) are good or bad.
7. Nunes memo hasn't been "debunked." DOJ Inspector General still investigating FISA abuses alleged in Nunes memo.[10]
8. No evidence for this. Likely a BLP violation. Need good, solid sourcing to essentially accuse a sitting congressman of treason.
9. See above.
10. No serious reliable sources would say whether or not the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt, as this is a highly subjective term dependent on one's perspective.
11. Not notable for this article. That has been part of the FBI/intel community's mission for decades before Trump became the president.
12. Again, no serious RS would say this due to subjective nature of these claims and reliance on perspective.
13. See above. "Attacking the very idea of truth"? Nowhere near appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I would be really surprised if saying the Trump administration is "gaslighting" and engaged in a "cover up" without any sources to support this isn't against one or many Wikipedia policies (even on a talk page) but see below:

1. Need multiple reliable sources that say the hacking was an "inside job."
2. Not relevant to this article.
3. Since almost all of the information has been disproven or unverified, the "fake" adjective is much closer to the side of truth than a conspiracy theory.
4. No reliable sourcing.
5. Too early to tell. We should wait for the conclusion of the DOJ IG's investigation into the allegations contained in the Nunes memo.
6. Again this phrase is not an encyclopedic term, subjective, and depends on perspective. You could say "Democrats have said the Mueller investigation is not a witch hunt, while Trump and Republicans have widely condemned the investigation as a witch hunt."
7. "Corruption" has a high bar for an encyclopedia. I don't think the Strzok-Page text messages, Andrew McCabe-James Comey-Loretta Lynch-Bruce Ohr-etc. OIG investigation qualifies yet. We really should wait for the conclusion of the OIG investigation for much of this content. WP:NOHURRY.

Sourcing information to InfoWars seems like a really bad idea for this article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you that no one is suggesting we actually use unreliable sources like InfoWars. I'm asking for RS coverage of the elements of conspiracy theories related to the dossier. See my immediately previous comment in the edit history. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: you cannot simply shout about RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA AND INFOWARS every time you want to shut an editor up as you did to me on Jimbo's talk page (extended version here). I'm not aware of anyone mentioning such sources. All of the references to Infowars in the talk page archives are you giving your Infowars speech, and in any event I practically begged you to use New York Times and Washington Post instead of the crap that is being used to exaggerate the prominence of a lot of these accusations, and you explicitly defended the use of low quality sources to push only these anti-Trump POVs in a one-sided way. You've deleted my comments altogether after I spent hours trying to detail the gargantuan problems with this article. Problems that have taken well over a year to accumulate under your, uh, careful 24/7 stewardship, and you're deleting my lengthy comments six frickin days after I post them, while leaving up your own comments including ones that hadn't gotten a response since April 3rd. And now here you are posting your own unsourceable thoughts and theories on political events as if they belong in the article. Beratement about non-existent references to propaganda and conspiracy theories, shutting down attempts to get outside feedback, and this constant supposition about what other editors think or read—is all disruptive and contrary to civil collaboration. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: could you please acknowledge this and promise that you will stop berating editors based on your own totally fabricated ideas about what views they hold and what newspapers they read?

Let others discuss things—no more deceptive shouting about Infowars and Russia Today and all the rest. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to take a brief respite. Law of holes. Just a friendly suggestion. O3000 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we could have a talk page where editors are allowed to talk about views and sourcing without being shouted down with irrelevant and insulting verbiage that has nothing to do with the views or sourcing they are talking about, e.g. right here in this same talk page section Bull is barking at User:Atsme to "follow RS, rather than the spin on Fox News and other unreliable sources". I am quite sure from reading her comments that Atsme knows how the RS policy works, and it is frankly none of Bull's business whether or not she watches Fox, which I have never seen her mention a single time. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Penn, redux

The restoration of the Mark Penn opinion (if it belongs at all, it belongs in the Nunes memo section) is a discredited defense of the Nunes memo, and also an attack on the dossier. It is also a basic defense of this conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Right now this particular one does not belong at all, as its notability has not been established.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories do not belong in our encyclopedia...period. Ask any skeptic who watches the chem-trail articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Not true. We document them if they have received any attention in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're referring to something similar to Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory, then yes. And when I add it means I'm joking. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like deep state conspiracy theory, and is undue weight. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Allegations have been made that this is an "attack" on the dossier and a "conspiracy theory", yet throughout this article the dossier is presented as some neutral non-political document instead of what it really is - opposition research paid for by the opposing political campaign. As far as notability it is published on TheHill website (a reliable source). More importantly: Mark Penn worked for Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign and is a very prominent political pollster and advisor. He also worked for many years for both of the Clintons and was an executive at Microsoft. His clients include former presidents Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and also Bill Gates. I understand that many users want to make this about a "conspiracy theory" but Mark Penn is not exactly a fringe conspiracy theorist. PZP-003 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003, you violated the DS conditions by restoring without consensus. Don't do that. You can be blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You write: "the dossier is presented as some neutral non-political document instead of what it really is - opposition research paid for by the opposing political campaign." That's nonsense. None of that is true. You must not have read the article. Even though Steele didn't know he was actually working for the DNC and Clinton campaign, he did have a non-neutral assignment, and that was to find answers to this question: "Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?" He set out to do that and used his well-established network of sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Penn's article is filled with the conspiracy theory talking points pushed by Trump and the unreliable sources which try to undermine what RS have documented and portray Trump and Co. as the innocent victims of a witch hunt. You are not the only editor here who believes elements of the theory, such as that Steele got his information from "Russian spies who provided the contents of his dossier on Trump."[11]. These are speculations not based on fact. Steele's methods, the ones which have given him success in the past and won him a sterling reputation as an excellent researcher and spy, are described in the article. The ones trying to get information from active Russian spies seeking to undermine American democracy were Trump and Co. From the article:

• "Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, has contrasted Steele's methods with those of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney at a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016: "The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give."[196]"

Steele was playing the Russians, while the Russians were playing the Trump campaign, and they knew it and willingly colluded to steal the election with Russian help. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thx for providing the diff of my argument, BR. Here's a NYTimes article we can share, and another Newsweek article, and since op-eds, like what's in National Observer, are cited in this article, here's the other side of the story, except this op-ed was published in WaPo. Bottomline, until actual evidence is brought forward to prove one way or the other that collusion (which is not a crime) or something worse has occured, it's nothing more than allegations, and partisan fighting for control of how to spend your money and making laws that allow them to do it legally. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Have Mark Penn's opinions/views on the dossier received any attention in any reliable secondary sources? A single op-ed in The Hill does not indicate great significance. ^Falling_Gravity 15:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an invented standard. The "allegations" section is filled with allegations that haven't been discussed in RS, let alone discussed in an RS piece that was then discussed in other RS pieces. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

(Redacted) Vixinews (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 🖋 11:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and POV issues

This article has outstanding problems with weak sourcing and one-sided POV presentations. I attempted to outline these problems in both general and specific on the Talk page. The comments were deleted by another user but anybody interested in exploring whether they agree can look at the comments in the Talk page archives.

1 2

Thanks. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice, you are correct that the article is one-sided POV.Phmoreno (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Criminal referrals connected to dossier

The article is also out of date now that criminal referrals of several people connected to the dossier have been issued. Specifically named are: Hillary Clinton, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Christopher Steele.Phmoreno (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)