Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

How to handle the Cohen Prague allegation

The article currently contains 12 paragraphs describing the key Dossier allegation of Cohen in Prague. So far, no physical evidence of this has emerged and Mueller dismissed the allegation. Is there a better way to summarize the key points of the Cohen allegation? I would posit that we should simply describe the allegation, touch on Mueller's rejection of the claim, and perhaps list some of the McClatchy reporting. There is far too much speculation and opining. Paragraph's 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12 could probably be outright removed and we wouldn't miss much. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Mr Ernie. This article needs some updating along with a bit of clean-up and condensing. Good luck! Atsme 💬 📧 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• What do RS say? There's a lot of RS coverage in the article, and your desire to remove it sounds on the face of it like WP:OR. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• The one-sided selection of paragraphs to remove is very telling. Controversial and highly published allegations should get the coverage afforded them by RS. The current content provides coverage from all sides, and deleting one side is not proper. Keep in mind that Mueller never investigated the claim. -- Valjean (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Valjean, as you are well-aware, and as your own sources state, the FBI investigated every line of the dossier. Whether Mueller and his team were directly, personally involved or not (which you don't actually know because no reliable source confirms your informed speculation above—sure, the unredacted Mueller report doesn't mention specific investigative steps that might have been taken, if any, and sources have noted that, but no reliable source unequivocally asserts that "Mueller never investigated the claim"), is a semantic distinction of little significance. I'm confused as to why you would repeat that talking point unless it is to imply that the FBI surely would have found the corroboration if only, alas, it had done its due diligence on one of the most important cases in its recent history. Certainly, the thrust of mainstream reporting in reliable journalistic outlets such as The New York Times, which we are obliged to follow and not to second-guess, has never attached great significance to the concept that perhaps Mueller never personally examined the evidence regarding Cohen's testimony under penalty of perjury, as seen in the Times article linked to at the beginning of this comment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• TheTimesAreAChanging, good catch. My choice of words was unfortunate. Kessler's wording is much better. Here's what we have in the article:

Glenn Kessler, fact-checker for The Washington Post, has said the Mueller Report "suggests no such meeting in Prague took place.... Mueller does not indicate he investigated whether Cohen traveled to Prague; he simply dismisses the incident in Cohen's own words as he discusses Cohen's preparation for testimony before Congress."[1]

The upshot is, according to RS, that the FBI, and others mentioned in the article, sought evidence and didn't find it. So we're left in lala land. We just don't know. The allegation is unproven, not disproven, and Cohen's unforced lies about it, like Trump's unforced lies about the Ritz-Carlton, remain hanging as possible "consciousness of guilt". Personally, I have no idea what happened in either case, and they have little bearing (no great significance) on the fact that the Trump campaign welcomed and co-operated with the Russian interference in the election. That is proven, even without these allegations being proven or unproven.

We shouldn't leave out what RS on all sides say about this. They paint a very mixed picture, and thus we should present that mixed picture. "All sides" does not include unreliable sources!

We should not pick a narrative we like and only include those sources which support it. Neither should we delete those sources which contradict a different narrative we like. In this case, the sources and content which are suggested for deletion are contrary to the narrative found in highly unreliable sources. Deleting selected content from RS based on an underlying and hidden belief in the narrative found in unreliable sources is highly partisan, unwikipedian, editing.

This is how content is shaped by those who consume unreliable sources. Without citing unreliable sources, they are still letting those sources dictate content here. That's wrong. This is why editors should not even read unreliable sources, unless they already understand and believe what RS say. Only then do they have the background and maturity for researching all sources, including unreliable ones. They won't be deceived. If they're uncertain and don't know what all RS have said, they risk getting deceived by unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

If there’s no evidence for something - we know. It’s unproven. I’m also very uncomfortable with you, a random person on the internet, telling me what I should or should not read. That’s not our role. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The premise on which Valjean bases his argument is ludicrous. See the following in Thinking Tools: You Can Prove A Negative

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

In the US, a person is innocent until proven guilty. When there is no proof of guilt, the person is innocent. Anyone, especially one's opposition, can allege anything against another. Does that establish guilt when there's no proof? Of course not. Stick to the facts. Mainstream media has dropped the ball with their Russian collusion conspiracy theory, misinformation and inaccuracies. They helped create this fiasco as I've demonstrated in the section above. Seriously, it's time to improve our WP article, fix the misleading allegations/accusations and put the speculation to bed (6 ft. under). There is a new criminal probe by the State of NY which has media in a new frenzy. We'll see if it ends up like the Giuliani frenzy that fizzled out. I'm reminded of the boy who cried WOLF!! Atsme 💬 📧 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made some further trims, cutting down some of the baseless and evidence free speculation. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not one of those deletions followed policy. That content was all properly sourced and many would see it as important. You don't seem to understand how article content is constructed here. We cover what RS say, even if you think it's speculation. We just attribute it properly. -- Valjean (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the deletions had anything to do with sourcing. I and others here have repeatedly tried to explain to you the policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. We are not an aggregation of each article subject mention in a RS - we use them as needed to create encyclopedic text. The text I removed was reliably sourced, but was removed for other reasons that I explained in the edit summaries. This ownership behavior by you has made progress here very tedious and difficult because you blanket object to anything being removed. Finally, your re-inclusion of this material falls afoul of WP:ONUS (which also plainly states not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and stonewalling every change to the article. I agree with Mr Ernie's trims and they should be restored. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no edit warring (a repeated deletion would be edit warring). I just performed the usual standard actions, justified by policy, for dealing with improper and undiscussed deletions of long-standing content. I just followed BRD. Now we're Discussing. This is not unusual, so please AGF.

This particular allegation was very serious, and the fact that it has not been proven or disproven is significant, at least for some. Its serious nature meant that it was covered widely and in extreme detail by RS, intelligence agencies. Cohen himself took it seriously enough to provide at least one false alibi. Readers need to understand the nature of how the alleged actions would happen or not happen, so (especially for readers who have not lived in Europe, as I have done) RS were aware that geography, timing, and understanding of how the Schengen Zone works is important, so removing content that provides that information is a disservice to readers.

It also violates WP:PRESERVE by not improving the content through use of any of the methods mentioned there ("#Try to fix problems"). Improvement is fine, but selective and one-sided deletion appears to violate NPOV and balance. There are multiple POV found in RS, some of them conflicting, and removing one side is wrong. (Seriously, attempts to debunk the allegation are important! So are the RS which try to poke holes in those attempts. Let readers decide which arguments are more honest or logical.) The mixed and blended picture should be preserved, as that is the narrative from myriad RS. That is NPOV content.

Attempts to improve should focus on limited and specific wordings seen as problematic, accompanied with proposals for improved wording. Repeated general complaints don't help. See #Try to fix problems. Feel free to make specific suggestions here and we can work collaboratively on improving this section. This approach has always worked best here. -- Valjean (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This revert of yours of a revert of mine broke BRD - you don’t have consensus for expanding the section while the clear consensus above is that it needs to be trimmed. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this section. Start a new section so we have documentation for a discussion about that content and who ends up bearing responsibility for its inclusion or deletion. Keep in mind that you'll need better arguments than you have used. -- Valjean (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It already exists - up there - where the consensus is that trims are needed for the fake pee tape sections, not expansions. Please remove it and gain consensus in the above section. You are the one not following BRD. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Kompromat

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house

A recent leaked Russian intelligence document confirms the core claim that Russia had kompromat on Trump from earlier visits to the country. 82.20.240.157 12:19, July 15, 2021‎ (UTC)

maybe, but does it mention the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. End of relevance here. -- Valjean (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd take Luke Harding with a grain of salt. He's published questionable claims regarding the Russia / Trump saga in the past. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Good source, but this story doesn't mention the dossier. -- Valjean (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

There are other RS which do connect this with the general (not 2013 Ritz) allegations of sexual kompromat mentioned in the dossier, allegations also made by multiple, non-USA, intelligence agencies. Those agencies say the dossier rings true on that point.

I won't exclude the possibility that those RSes might be relevant, as they just show how many RS still consider that part of the dossier to be accurate. -- Valjean (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s almost certainly BS but you do you VJ. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, so in spite of the fact it confirms something we know to be true independently from the dossier, you think it's BS? That doesn't make sense. We already know that Putin signed off on the whole, very successful, election interference, make Trump President, intel operation. Ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden called it the "most successful covert operation in history." Also, other RS make the same allegations about probable Trump sexual actions in multiple locations in Russia, and he bragged about Russian women, so it's all totally "in character" for him. Trump has never hidden the fact that he was quite the playboy and adulterer. The dossier was not the first to make the allegations. It's just the most notable to do it.

Also, is there a typo in the last part of your comment? -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid garlic and crucifix are the only means to resist Luke Harding's propaganda. If Wikipedia insists on counting The Guardian as a reliable source, it really ought to cut out the bits dictated by MI6. Shtove (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian is an excellent RS. If you still disagree, then try RS/N. -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The place for this is about the allegations, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, where is that? -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Links between Trump associates and Russian officials?Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. Maybe I don't understand what you're referring to. I thought this was about the appropriateness (or lack) of mentioning this latest "leaked Russian intelligence document" that mentions kompromat possessed by the Russians. It does have a connection to the same claims made in the dossier and by multiple non-Russian intelligence agencies, but we usually avoid using such content if it doesn't mention the dossier. Many RS have mentioned kompromat and dossier claims, so we cover it, especially in the section "Kompromat and blackmail: Trump". In this case, some RS do and some don't connect this leaked document and the dossier, so it comes down to exactly which source to use and how to use it. So far, no one has made a proposition of a source (which mentions the dossier) or wording to use. -- Valjean (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Because (as far as I can see) none of the RS link it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I suspect we have misunderstood each other. I was referring to a connection between the subject of this thread and the link you provided to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. I don't see a connection.

We do have mention of this matter and the dossier in WaPo, an impeccable RS:

"Of course, it also stimulates the divisive debate about the dossier of documents compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, the original source of the idea that Russia held incriminating material targeting Trump."[2].

If we use this source, it would be a short mention. I propose this addition at the end of the section "Kompromat and "golden showers" allegation":

"A leaked internal document, purportedly of a Kremlin meeting between Putin and his intelligence chiefs on January 22, 2016, describes their plans to interfere in the 2016 election to ensure that Trump became president. It also mentions that they have kompromat on Trump, a key allegation in the dossier. The leak was first reported by The Guardian and received wide coverage."

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, your own "impeccable source" states "But it's hard not to be skeptical of the document, for a number of reasons," including Harding's previous dubious reporting on Manafort's supposed meeting with Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, yet your proposal completely omits this skepticism presumably because you personally disagree with it. How does that work?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What counts is that the WaPo is considered a RS here, so what do you think about my proposed wording? -- Valjean (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

WaPo thinks the document is highly suspect (like so much misinformation that comes out of Russia/Ukraine); your summary omits that, so it is incomplete. If you want to attribute to Bump, that's fine, since it's an opinion column and you already watered down and attributed hard-news reporting from The New York Times to Goldman and Savage, but including at least an attributed quotation from Bump to accurately summarize the source is clearly preferable to just ignoring the parts that you don't like. Also, neither The Guardian nor WaPo say that the document received "wide coverage"—which, in point of fact, it hasn't.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, while I understand your desire to coatrack criticism of the document into this article, that is not the subject here. If an article about the leaked document is ever created here, then such commentary and opinion would certainly be justified there. I'm trying to avoid including such opinions here, and I'll clean up what I wrote above (although it is still true that it has "received wide coverage").

There are many sources, reliable and dubious, which share opinions about the leaked (maybe leaked by British intelligence) document, including several cautious and skeptical opinions in RS. Several sources also connect it to the dossier's "kompromat" allegations. What rings true in several sources are the "true even if fake" and "nothing we didn't already know" angles. Regardless of its provenance, that is the case.

What's new is the info about the actual meeting, its date, the actual participants, and the author (Vladimir Symonenko) of the document. Otherwise, the content (Russian descriptions of Trump's mental state, the nature of the planned election interference, and the existence of kompromat) is all "ancient history". which few would doubt, unless they are diehard Fox/Breitbart/Trumpists. Myriad RS have told us this ad nauseaum for several years, and it is our duty to align our personal opinions with those narratives, as well as change them when RS do so. Following the scientific method, using critical thinking, and following the evidence are essential traits of good editors. Unreliable sources should never be a factor in such decisions.

Here's a tweaked version:

"A purportedly leaked internal document of a Kremlin meeting between Putin and his intelligence chiefs on January 22, 2016, describes their plans to interfere in the 2016 election to ensure that Trump became president. It also mentions that they have kompromat on Trump, a key allegation in the dossier. The leak was first reported in The Guardian."

How's that wording? (Still no improper coatracking.) -- Valjean (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose addition of this material to this bloated article. It already contains way too many opinion pieces that have not played out like the authors opined. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, words have meaning and shouldn't be used carelessly; policies and essays have meaning and shouldn't be invoked when not applicable. WP:COATRACK doesn't apply to summarizing attributed opinions from reliable sources that are clearly, directly related to the subject of the article; otherwise, half of this entire article devoted to carefully-curated sections methodically tracking opinion on the "Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations" and "Varied observations of dossier's veracity," etc., would constitute COATRACK and your statement would be a remarkable self-condemnation. (As an aside, that Simpson and Steele are the first citations in those sections, literally fact-checking their own work, is a novel editorial choice on your part.) Your assertion that "the existence of kompromat [presumably including a pee tape?] is all 'ancient history' which few would doubt, unless they are diehard Fox/Breitbart/Trumpists" is, however, an unnecessary personal attack and completely contrary to recent reporting that I am aware of in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other reliable sources. While I have no desire to get any further down in the weeds with you, I will note again for the benefit of other editors (as I have previously) that Valjean is responsible for 75% of the text in this article and that such control of a major article by a single editor with strong opinions is highly unusual on Wikipedia, perhaps unsurprisingly leading to the widespread concerns expressed by many editors on this talk page about a perceived lack of neutrality.

In terms of substantive issues, WP:V is not negotiable, so merely asserting that "it is still true that [the Guardian document] has 'received wide coverage'" is irrelevant to article improvement as long as that statement remains unsupported by any reliable source. Personally, I am not aware of any U.S.-based hard news coverage of this putative "bombshell" document, presumably because U.S. media outlets are preoccupied with COVID, the Olympics, the Biden administration, and trying to independently verify a document of unknown provenance without getting burned. I watch CNN constantly and have heard nothing, and the only coverage in major U.S. newspapers appears to be the very opinion column that you presented as proof of "wide coverage" above. On reflection, I probably wouldn't think that a single uncorroborated news report and one opinion column stating that the aforementioned news report is highly dubious is the level of sourcing that Wikipedia would generally consider to be adequate for explosive "bombshell" allegations about living persons (see WP:BLP), but maybe that's just me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your comment seems to indicate that you haven't read my previous response, as I considered your objections and modified my suggestion. There is no need to comment on anything other than the suggestion. Focus on content, not on me. (You're welcome to discuss other matters on my talk page.)

COATRACK does apply to your suggested inclusions about the leaked document, but not at all to the existing content you mention as that content is all directly about the dossier. It is thus very much on topic here. -- Valjean (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If you plan on focusing on content I would suggest you strike your unless they are diehard Fox/Breitbart/Trumpists comment. Other than that TheTimesAreAChanging is 100% correct and all points. PackMecEng (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. -- Valjean (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Cohen and alleged Prague visit

PackMecEng, please stop the edit warring and follow BRD. You made a Bold edit and I Reverted it. Instead of then starting a Discussion, you restored the disputed content. That's edit warring. Then you added two more sources, but I'm unclear what wordings in them justify their use, so I'm asking for WP:Verification.

I have reverted back to the status quo version so we can discuss your concerns and see if we can satisfy them. I suspect we can, at least partially. I'm certainly open to article improvement, but not by edit warring or misuse of opinion sources to make unattributed statements of fact. I'd like to know the exact wordings in your three sources that justify using them. Also, we'd need to attribute the opinions and not present them as facts, if such is the case. I can't know without seeing them. So please help me out here.

There are plenty of conflicting opinions about all these allegations, and the whole "Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations" section tries to list them, pro, neutral, and con. Most subsections start with a neutral description of the allegations, followed by commentary, facts, and opinions specifically about that specific allegation. There are plenty of conflicting matters there, because that's the picture painted by RS. Some see confirmation of allegations, while others see no confirmation, and others see allegations as debunked or false. Our job is to present these conflicting views because RS do that. Only where there is complete agreement among mainstream RS can we start a section with a bold "proven" or "false". Without such a consensus in mainstream sources, we must not use individual opinions, even in RS, to make such a "falsely" opening declaration, as you have done. That should be done further down as the opinion of the author(s).

Please provide the wordings from each of these three sources: -- Valjean (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Just going to ask once for you to self revert your BLP vio before I do. Baseless speculation about debunked claims are not okay. We are not here to promote conspiracy theories. The sources I gave are not opinion articles so don't misrepresent RS again. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What is the "BLP vio"? That's a new one. No one else has complained.

What wordings from those articles justify your suggested changes? -- Valjean (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As I posted in my previous comment, accusations that have been proven fault against a BLP must be stated as such. PackMecEng (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Even Mate doesn't say it's false. There is no consensus in RS that it's false. They are all over the place, with fringe sources all agreeing that Russiagate was a witch hunt, Trump is totally without fault, the Russians did not interfere in the election, and the dossier is completely fiction and totally wrong. You know that narrative is fringe and largely false and misleading. It's more complicated than that, and it is that picture we present. You can't take sides. Now stop the edit warring or you're going to get in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you been reading any modern sources on the dossier? They are not exactly glowing. They repeatedly state how worthless and false it was. People from both parties agree that it fringe. I have provided several high quality RS that say just that in fact. So unless you have any policy based arguments, the content will be restored. Please stop edit warring and come up with an argument grounded in policy. PackMecEng (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity in RS that Cohen was not in Prague, and therefore that allegation is false. It has been debunked several times over, and it is time to update the article to reflect that. PME is correct that a false allegation about Cohen is a BLP violation. VJ - please stop obstructing progress to the article by reverting every change. It is not 2017 anymore. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, what is the BLP violation? Read WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We cite abundant RS which confirm the wording of the allegation, so even if it's false, a neutral wording of the allegation that is properly-sourced cannot be a BLP violation. OTOH, an UNCITED "false allegation about Cohen is a BLP violation," but it is properly referenced, so it cannot be a BLP violation. The current wording of the allegation is very neutral. We do not take sides.

AFTER neutrally quoting the allegation, we already cover all sides, including those that think it's false, and those that saw some evidence, but couldn't get final confirmation, leaving the allegation hanging as yet another unconfirmed allegation. It may be false, or it may not. It may well be part of the 10-30% of the dossier that might be inaccurate (Steele's estimate). It may be totally false, or it may be inaccurate and he was somewhere else in the area. We know he was close enough to have been in that area at that time, but he lied repeatedly about that, so that makes one wonder why.

Our content on this subject (and all the other allegations) covers what RS say, and they say many, often conflicting, things. (I keep getting the strong feeling that neither of you have actually read the whole section, much less other parts of the article to which you object.)

The addition of Mate's opinion would not alter our coverage but be just one more source, and that source does not indicate that the allegation is false, just that it's unproven. I have read his article twice and don't see it justifying the addition of the word "falsely". Please quote the words in his article that would justify that word. Also the same request for the other sources PME added. Sources must be verifiable. That is a requirement here, and any editor who adds a source must justify why they are using it.

When RS coverage is conflicting, we do not take sides. Instead, we report both sides, and that's what we already do. You are advocating that we take sides in wikivoice. That's an NPOV violation. If Mate says "falsely", we can cite it as his opinion, but he doesn't even do that. -- Valjean (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they reported the accusation when it was new. It has since been thoroughly debunked. That is the difference and why it is a BLP issue and frankly an NPOV issue since you are promoting a fringe view. PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

BS. You still haven't even shown how those three sources justify "falsely". Please verify that the sources can be used for that purpose. Without verification you have no case, even for using them at all. Stop edit warring and keep discussing, without evading your responsibility to verify the sources for your intended purpose. -- Valjean (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Read the sources please. They all state how the dossier was wrong. Extremely wrong with terrible sources. They explain how the claim was debunked by the media and even directly contradicted by Mueller. If you have no argument or recent sources that support your POV, then you have no valid reason to try and keep this BLP vio in the article. Again if you don't have policy or facts to stand on your argument is basically worthless. To that fact, I have no seen you actually present an argument other than you dislike reliable sources, which will not get you far on Wikipedia. PackMecEng (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I have read them and do not see it. Please provide an exact quote - the specific language, copy-pasted, from those sources, that you believe justifies the WP:BLP-sensitive accusations you are making against the dosser's author - since you; you've been asked repeatedly and can't seem to come up with one. --Aquillion (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course I daily read all RS (and many unreliable) that mention the dossier, as well as primary source documents and reports. I have several Google Alerts for this topic. I'm well aware of the state of lacking evidence for that allegation. That does not mean it's false. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." None of those three sources you provide justify using the word "falsely". You still show evidence that you haven't read that whole section. There are plenty of RS there which are negative toward the allegation.

You haven't even provided any exact quotes from them to back up that word. Not even Mate makes such a claim. Why don't you do verify your sources? There is no rush, so provide the quotes that will convince me.

Also, stop threatening to continue edit warring. You violated BRD twice, so I have exact diffs that prove who is edit warring. It's not me. Instead of stonewalling and griping, provide the requested verification. That's policy at its most basic. All content must be based on verifiable content in RS.

It would also help to provide an exact formulation of what you'd like to add. Maybe a second sentence in the first paragraph? I think that might be a fruitful avenue toward resolution. -- Valjean (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Just read the sources, I gave them. They support the edit. If you are stuck on the word falsely for some reason, then what word would you use to fix this BLP vio you created? Its false statement, but if that is a little too nuanced for you perhaps lied? Wrongly? Ignorantly? It's up to you but we have a service to the reader not to spread fake news. You still have not even given any reason for the revert from what I can tell.

So lets recap. There are multiple high quality verifiable RS that support my edit and nothing policy based, reality based, or reliable source based that support your revert. So quit being disruptive and quit edit warring. PackMecEng (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these improvements to the article. The wordings better reflect the bulk of recent RS coverage, progressing from the mostly breathless but unverified and largely baseless initial reporting. Such cuts are definite improvements. I remember how much time we wasted trying to remove the undue opinion of some anonymous Russian prostitutes who an editor called the “real experts.” Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

PME, you haven't yet provided verification from those three sources to back up such wording. Matte doesn't call it false, nor do the others. If they do, then provide the quotes and I'll be convinced to add those as attributed opinions. False and uncorroborated are two very different things. We already include many RS that say uncorroborated, using various wordings, so you're just pushing for more of the same, but even stronger, without such evidence or verification in those sources. This is really basic policy stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not seeing any sources supporting your edit; the one you added just seems to say that Cohen denied it, which is not the same as saying that it is false. Since the dosser has a named, identified author, BLP works both ways - if you want to flatly state in the article voice that he "falsely alleged" something, you need a source saying so in as many words, or you are the one violating WP:BLP. Right now the only language I see in your source that could remotely be construed as supporting the allegation you want to make in the article voice is Messrs. Cohen, Gubarev and others have long since denied taking part in the activities described in the dossier, which is obviously insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng and Mr Ernie: - please provide the relevant quotes from the sources? It would be helpful. Thanks. starship.paint (exalt) 15:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I’m on mobile with not a lot of time today, but for me it’s “Mueller dismissed the theory in his report.” There’s been no other substantiation - the theory is false. The Intelligencer source called the theory “unfounded.” Mr Ernie (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• So, using our verification policy, "dismissed" and "unfounded" would have backing from RS. (Just to be certain, please attach the sources to each word.) Which words in which sources would justify "falsely"? Until now, it's appeared to be based on POV OR. We need precise, exact quote, verification. It should be easy to provide that. -- Valjean (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think we can editorially make the decision to use “false” to describe a theory that has been disproven. We do those types of things frequently - we interpret the sourcing and apply the correct wording. The current text draws heavily from the 2016-2017 time frame of sources, with too much non encyclopedic speculation could have might be could be type analysis. The entire Van Zandt paragraph is such language that could be excised. We shouldn’t write articles based on tweets from musicians. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• It has not been "disproven". Unproven, yes, disproven, no. (Maybe I have been wrong to assume that English is your native language.) This is about VERY basic rules of language and logic which you're violating with your OR.

We are not "writing articles based on tweets from musicians." That's a nonsensical statement. Van Zandt's experience is just one more detail from RS, all made significant because it disproves one of Cohen's lies about the matter. That's why RS thought it notable enough to report. That kind of evidence should not be left out. Cohen was close enough in distance and time to easily have done what he was accused of doing. Then he foolishly created a false alibi that was quickly disproven by famous witnesses. That's really embarrassing. Cohen isn't even a good liar. It doesn't prove he's "guilty as charged," but such lies are viewed as consciousness of guilt. Why lie if innocent? Trump did the same thing about the alleged Ritz Carlton incident. Again, why all the lying? -- Valjean (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Valjean:, @Aquillion:, @Starship.paint:, and @Mr Ernie:. Sure lets run down the sources I linked in the article and I will bold the important bits. Also I can add some more.
  • First source The Nation, RSP entry states According to Greg Miller of The Washington Post, colleagues at the newspaper “literally spent weeks and months trying to run down” material in the dossier, including Cohen’s alleged visit to Prague to pay off Russian hackers. “We sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there, and came away empty.” and then goes on to say Cohen ultimately denied the claim under oath, and the Mueller report concurred by noting that Cohen “never traveled to Prague.”[3]
  • Second source The Wall Street Journal, RSP entry states The Mueller report presented no evidence the purported Prague meeting ever happened.[4]
  • Third source The Rolling Stone, RSP entry states Mueller dismissed the theory in his report, writing: “Cohen understood Congress’s interest in him to be focused on the allegations in the Steele reporting concerning a meeting Cohen allegedly had with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign. Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false.”[5]
  • Fourth source PolitiFact, RSP entry states The infamous Steele dossier said Cohen took a meeting in Prague with Russian officials. Cohen told the special counsel that allegation was demonstrably false, and the report doesn’t contradict him. So it seems likely that the allegation of a Prague meeting from the Steele dossier is inaccurate.[6]
  • Fifth source Wired, RSP entry states Michael Cohen’s trip to Prague—a rumor specifically debunked by Mueller in his report.[7]
  • Sixth source The Detroit News, no RSP entry says Mueller also contradicted a McClatchy news service story alleging that Cohen had traveled to Prague, in the Czech Republic, in summer 2016 to meet with Russians involved in the effort to influence the election. Mueller’s report said that Cohen had not gone to Prague.[8]
  • Seventh source The New York Times, RSP entry states The report indicates that Michael D. Cohen never traveled to Prague to meet with Russians.[9]
• Does that sum it up enough to describe it as false? It is also important to note that these are more recent sources than a lot of the ones used in the section, which were written before more information had come out. Most sources talking about this are focused on February 2019 and earlier. Reporting on the subject shifted dramatically after that as new information became available, specifically Mueller's report. This is not an if we can describe it as false or debunked but a how we describe it situation. PackMecEng (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • PackMecEng - thanks for the detailed research and response. Every one of these sources cite the Mueller Report. Thus we should do so (attribute, not Wikivoice) as well. I would thus disagree with The dossier falsely claimed. I would instead write something like Unlike the dossier,[Politifact][Nation] The Mueller Report concluded that "Cohen had never traveled to Prague",[Nation][Rolling] and presented no evidence of the alleged Prague meeting.[WSJ][Politifact] Therefore, the Mueller Report contradicted the dossier,[Nation] and the McClatchy report.[Detroit] starship.paint (exalt) 03:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    It is certainly an improvement but I don't know that I would lean into the Mueller report so hard. The sources are not saying so much that Mueller thinks its wrong so maybe, they are saying it is wrong because of Mueller. In most of the sources they are speaking in their own voice along the lines of it is wrong because of the report. We can certainly call out the report as the reason why it is false but we should be careful to not give the impression that is it anything but that. PackMecEng (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• The point is that if the sources attribute it, and treat it as a disagreement among their sources, then we have to do so as well. Saying, flatly, that the report "falsely claimed" something without attribution - as if it is uncontested fact that something was claimed falsely - requires a source that likewise treats it as uncontested fact, which the sources you're citing do not. --Aquillion (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  That is what is happening though. They are not contesting it but flatly stating why it is false. It was not a qualifying statement. PackMecEng (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• PackMecEng, thanks so much for such a great response. This is a textbook example of verification, and is something we can really work with. Starship.paint has now done a good job of condensing the content. We already had this content in the article, with several of the negative assessments of the dossier's allegation, but the current reworking looks pretty good. At least that's how I see it in my half-awake condition. -- Valjean (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• The problem with your edit is the same issue that Aquillion brought up. You relegated to the rear as an alternate viewpoint rather than the vast majority point. At this point I would go as far as removing or greatly reducing the McClatchy part as just straight up conspiracy theory and drop the early coverage from 2018 as no longer relevant. Then move the new additions up in the section and get rid of some of the weasel wording and get to the point that it was fault and the Mueller report makes that clear as that is now the majority view of RS. PackMecEng (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think PackMecEng has a point that recent sources are rather negative on the dossier's allegation about Prague. We could do with some trimming of Prague. starship.paint (exalt) 13:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint:, I strongly disagree. That wouldn't just be a slippery slope, but a plunge down historical revisionism based on fringe editorial POV. This is not scientific research where new knowledge updates and replaces older, slightly (or completely) inaccurate views. Much of this is varying opinions about the few things we do know, and speculation of what we don't know. These are not all facts.

To selectively remove mainstream views and evidence, deliberately leaving only the one narrative we know is universally favored by ALL unreliable sources, should give one serious pause to reconsider such a revisionist approach. These later reports are nothing new, but repetitions of older, negative, views we already mention in the article, and those repetitions are made by only those still interested in the subject. If there were newer actual evidence, then it would be a different matter.

We must not take sides, but continue to present the varied bits of evidence, for and against, that RS have shown us over time. That's the NPOV requirement. The most we know is that the allegation might be inaccurate about the Prague location, with bits of information, including from European intelligence agencies, telling us that they believe Cohen did something in the area (maybe not Prague itself), with Cohen lying and providing a false alibi to cover up for the fact he was close enough in time and distance to have done something, and then the repeated failures by those who actually tried (Mueller didn't try) to find absolute proof he was in Prague, as alleged. Nothing has proven (IOW actually debunked) he could not have done it. That's why this is still an unproven allegation. We have no right to selectively delete contrary views from mainstream RS because they are contrary to the universal, denialist/protectionist POV of unreliable sources, and because someone seems to repeat that POV in a RS. We already mention those POV. -- Valjean (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I made some proposals in the section up above, but Valjean was about the sole voice opposing the changes and reverting them, so I gave up. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: - the seven sources quoted above by Pack aren't unreliable sources. Some, like NYT and WSJ, are unquestionably mainstream. A cursory search reveals AP as well. There's a whole series of WaPo opinion articles (which we are not going to use for facts, the point is that this isn't some fringe right-wing POV), and New York. AP, above, and CNN reference the Horowitz Report being against the Prague allegation also. Clearly there has been a shift (may not be unanimous, but clearly, some important outlets) in mainstream media POV on the Steele dossier. As to what needs to be changed, @Mr Ernie: I now think the trimming should be on hold, we have to first add the Horowitz content, then establish a first paragraph of the Prague section that summarizes (1) dossier, (2) McClatchy, (3) Mueller, and (4) Horowitz, then look at the trimming. starship.paint (exalt) 02:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:, when I mention unreliable sources, I am not referring to those sources. Unreliable sources go too far, IOW where PME wants to go (false, debunked), and the RS above do not (not found evidence, except for the evidence that has been found by McClatchy and intelligence agencies). Neither do the RS above add anything new that isn't already in the article. We already document the negative part from the Mueller report, as well as what those who tried to unsuccessfully find evidence said. There is no new evidence for or against in the sources above, so we have no justification for changing the balance. Otherwise, your idea about examining those four angles before any trimming is good, as long as trimming isn't done as suggested, IOW POV revisionism to hide uncomfortable and contrary views in RS, leaving only the view found in unreliable sources. We mustn't do that. We must continue to show all the conflicting views found in RS. If we don't do that, we are choosing sides. -- Valjean (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a good start and appreciate the work you did. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Dispute over two versions of a sentence

There is a dispute over two versions of a sentence:

Original:

Matt Taibbi states that the Horowitz Report describes the dossier's Cohen-Prague allegation as either fake or baseless.

Revised:

Matt Taibbi wrote that the "Horowitz report makes clear that multiple news cycles over the last few years were dominated by reports that were either incorrect or lacking factual foundation." This included their coverage of the Prague allegation.

I made the change to resolve two big problems: lack of verification and OR misinterpretation of the source.

The two words "fake" or "baseless" do not appear in the source, so they lack verification and must not be used in wikivoice. The source also makes clear that Taibbi is describing the news reporting about many allegations, not the allegations themselves, so we actually have a double problem. Quoting resolves both problems.

In spite of my edit summaries, Mr Ernie restored the faulty version twice and claimed the "original wording was better and more clear," IOW he's supporting content that violates at least two policies. That's really bad editing. The original (current) version is completely misleading and lacks verification. That's two strikes against it. We need to resolve this. -- Valjean (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There’s already 3x the text needed for the Cohen Prague section. We don’t need to add more. From CNN - “Horowitz also noted that some of the details from the dossier were untrue, such as the allegation that Michael Cohen traveled to Prague in 2016 to meet with Russians.” Perhaps we should use untrue per CNN? The Taibbi piece says “incorrect or lacking factual foundation.” Is “fake and baseless” not another way to say that? I’m ok with fake, false, baseless, incorrect, untrue, or perhaps unfounded. I’m running out of synonyms. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the second problem. Taibbi is describing the news reporting about many allegations, not the allegations themselves. As far as negative descriptions of the Cohen Prague allegation, we are packing many negative descriptioins in there already. How many do you want? Have you EVER read that whole section? Have you ever read the whole article? I have seen no evidence of that. -- Valjean (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it is splitting hairs, but I get your point. Perhaps we should replace Taibbi with Horowitz, per CNN, (I'm quoting the CNN piece here so it needs to be refined) "Horowitz also noted that some of the details from the dossier were untrue, such as the allegation that Michael Cohen traveled to Prague in 2016 to meet with Russians.” We could also remove the Van Zandt bit, which has nothing to do with Prague, but something about Capri and Rome. Then we are left with the allegation from Steele, the McClatchy reporting about unnamed people saying there were some cell phone pings, and Mueller and Horowitz who debunked it. What do you think? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A short but accurate version would be best. Version 1 above misrepresents the source and is unencyclopedic.I also question whether anything should be sources to Taibbi. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree about Taibbi, but that's just me. He has become quite unreliable. -- Valjean (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Compromise, shorten: Matt Taibbi wrote that news reports of the Cohen-Prague allegation were "either incorrect or lacking factual foundation." @Valjean, Mr Ernie, and SPECIFICO:. starship.paint (exalt) 03:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Taibbi's opinion is unimportant. Its UNDUE at best. If its currently in the article, it should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Use of word "allegation"

@Valjean: Number 2. "Allegation", by definition, means there is no proof. But it implies POV. – S. Rich (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I want to make sure I understand you. Is the use of the word "allegation" a deciding factor for you? We have used it since the beginning of this article in a general, not legal, sense, IOW an allegation can be proven true, proven false, or remain unproven. So is that word so important? If so, we should reconsider how it is used in this whole article. Please share your thinking on this matter. -- Valjean (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Valjean The https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/allegation gives us lots of problematic synonyms. Let's avoid it. You are correct, a legal allegation sets out what someone expects to prove in court. But there is enough cross-over ambiguity in the two senses that we should avoid it. – S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a very helpful perspective. I don't recall that it has been raised as an issue before.

The allegations section has mostly been my work, and I chose that word to remain neutral and not imply anything (positive, negative, or neutral) about each allegation. That is also because of the wide diversity of opinion about the veracity of each allegation. Therefore we let the RS talk in a whole section where the diversity of opinions are shared. Readers can come to their own conclusions. -- Valjean (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions about how to resolve this "situation"? I hesitate to call it a "problem" as it hasn't bothered anyone else, that I know of. -- Valjean (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I'd like to resolve this issue. It's not good if a word widely used in the article is not the best word to use. That's an untenable situation. Do you have any suggestions? BTW, this Bloomberg article shows how the word allegation is used. -- Valjean (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging some experienced eyes: Soibangla, Starship.paint, Aquillion -- Valjean (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think "allegation" implies POV. WP:BLPPUBLIC repeatedly uses "allegation". 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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out ... A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred ... If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported... starship.paint (exalt) 01:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

My concern about "allegation" is confined to the short description. The purpose of the SD is fulfilled without using the word. – S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- Valjean (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Business Insider

We currently source a lot of text from Business Insider, something like 20+ references. There is currently "no consensus" on the reliability of Business Insider (WP:BI). Is it possible to substitute these pieces for stronger sources? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That would be up to you. Have at it. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to spend time making changes to have them reverted instantly. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say go ahead. We should not be pushing marginally reliable sources. PackMecEng (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on the judgment at WP:RS/P, there is no justification to blanket remove its use as a source:

"There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher."

Like all sources, including the best, each use should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Inaction, except when a clearly identifiable problem is found, is the proper approach. There is normally no cause for alarm or red flag when one sees BI used as a source. That is not the case for generally unreliable sources, or sources like Fox News, which are flagged for certain problems. One should be very cautious with them, and one should generally try to use alternatives, and lacking alternatives, don't add the content.

I subscribe to BI and find it to be a very neutral and reliable source of news. It doesn't push fake news or extremist views. It's very non-partisan. Problems occur with sources when they are so hyperpartisan that they ignore or twist facts toward their agenda. That leads to problems. BI has no such political agenda.

If there is a clearly identifiable problem with a particular spot we use it, then we should obviously do something, and I'll support such efforts. Have you found any problematic ones? Feel free to list them here and I'll help find replacements. -- Valjean (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO see what I mean? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are not prepared to demonstrate the courage of your convictions to share what you believe would be improvements, then why comment? Surely you didn't think you could assign tasks to other editors when you feel the work is thankless. Or maybe you think you are that lone editor whose changes must never be reverted? SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you could throw a few more hypotheticals out until you get the right one? I'm not going to waste time making changes if Valjean is just going to immediately revert them. And just to humor you, let's try one.

We have the text In June 2020, Steele said that Theresa May's British government covered up the evidence he provided them of Trump's Russian ties and took no actions, and that Boris Johnson suppressed a report about the intelligence in the dossier which was prepared by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee. That report has never been published. which is solely sourced to this BI article. Allegations that senior government officials are suppressing reports and covering up evidence need stronger sourcing than BI. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That's an excellent example. How should we deal with it? We are not enemies, so please don't assume I'm difficult to work with. When concrete examples are on the table, I'm usually very rational and easy to deal with. My approach for potentially controversial (which should mean avoidance of the BOLD approach) edits is to first propose them here for discussion. That way the article is spared edit warring and strife. So feel free to list examples here and we can try to find better sources when that is really necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's a replacement from The Guardian, an excellent RS. The current wording is likely still good and is attributed properly, but BI has one part, and The Guardian covers the rest, so we need to keep BI for part of it. This wasn't some offhand private opinion by Steele, but testimony to a parliamentary investigation committee. Here's a new version using both sources:

In 2018, Steele told a UK parliamentary investigation that Theresa May's British government covered up the evidence he provided them of Trump's Russian ties and took no actions, and that Boris Johnson suppressed a report about the intelligence in the dossier which was prepared by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee. That report has never been published.

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I will bring a few more to the talk page shortly. Is there any response about Steele's accusations? Would be helpful to balance NPOV, but I can't find anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Good question. I don't recall seeing anything, but I haven't searched for it so may have missed it. I'll try to find something. -- Valjean (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, my search did turn up the date of the publication of the long-delayed report. I have now tweaked that content so it's more accurate. As to "balancing" and NPOV. NPOV doesn't always mean balancing, except where there is conflicting information published by RS. (Unreliable sources don't factor into this.) If there is only a news report about an event, and it is uncontested, the NPOV requirement is met by reporting it without any editorial insertion of spin, slant, or personal opinion. Simple and accurate documentation serves the purpose. -- Valjean (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier, ABC documentary with George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Steele

On October 18, 2021, this ABC News documentary will air on Hulu. I suspect it will contain content that is usable here and at the Christopher Steele article.

• ABC News, full trailer
• On Hulu

Valjean (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

We will keep an eye out for the news coverage of the documentary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Starting a list of RS for possible use:

• Confronting his critics, Christopher Steele defends controversial dossier in first major interview
  • "Steele continues to defend ... a claim that Michael Cohen ... traveled to Prague in 2016.... 'I'm prepared to accept that not everything in the dossier is 100% accurate," Steele said. "I have yet to be convinced that that is one of them.'"
  • Regarding one of his major sources for the pee tape allegation (there were others), "Steele, in response, told Stephanopoulos that his collector may have "taken fright" at having his cover blown and tried to "downplay and underestimate" his own reporting when he spoke to the FBI." This view is also mirrored by the FBI in the Inspector General's report. Here's what we already have in this article: "The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed this key sub-source "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the [dossier's] election reporting following its release to the public". -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

He still thinks Cohen was in Prague? And that there is a pee tape? Wild. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Danchenko arrested

The primary sub-source who is listed a few times in the article, Igor Danchenko, was arrested and charged with lying to the FBI. There's stuff in these 3 RS that could be useful to the article. Danchenko allegedly lied to the FBI about his when they interviewed him, and some of the material in question ended up in the dossier. NPR, NYT, and WaPo. NYT's headline is also enlightening, calling the dossier "rumors and unproven assertions," with the body later calling it a "compendium of rumors and unproven assertions." Does that reflect how our article treats it? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sentence #2 of lead: "explosive dossier of unsubstantiated and salacious material." soibangla (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Attributed to NPR. I believe we now have strong enough sourcing to put that in wiki voice. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. But it's not like we didn't make the point right up top. soibangla (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this can be noted in this article somewhere. I'm sure it's also going in the Durham probe article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been watching this and am working on some of it at User:Valjean/Danchenko indictment. I have also added some to the Igor Danchenko article. This is a developing story, and I'm pretty sure some will make its way into this article. We already knew he lied to the FBI by trying to downplay his role as a source, but was never charged for doing it. Now we find he might have also lied to Steele. This will get interesting....rubs hands together with evil grin. -- Valjean (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Many commentators, Ken Dilanian, Jonathan Swan, and Glenn Kessler are who I've seen so far, are making the point that not only was the dossier funded by a political campaign, but that some of the dossier's sources were also somehow associated with that campaign. The Washington Post said that "The allegations [in the indictment] cast new uncertainty on some past reporting on the dossier by news organizations, including The Washington Post. So let's see what sources are coming out, moving forward, but I expect significant updates to this article will be required. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Almost all this seems to have been comprehensively covered way back by sources deemed not reliable, while a reliable source which is peppered across the references to this article is now admitting that it can't be relied upon because it relied on assertions made by a guy relying on the assertions of another guy whom the not reliable sources had already tagged as unreliable. Time to start from scratch. Shtove (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, "the dossier funded by a political campaign". Yes, not news. We've known this forever. "that some of the dossier's sources were also somehow associated with that campaign." The involvement of Dolan is what's new, and he did lie to Steele in at least one instance. (Are you thinking of others?) Dolan was not involved with the campaign, but was a Clinton supporter with international contacts, especially in Russia. He had good opportunities to get information there, and he knew important people in the Russian government, so he was a perfect person to use as an intelligence asset. This is VERY interesting. What type of involvement did he have and does it make a difference for the veracity of the dossier? Maybe good for some aspects and bad for others. Right now the FBI is pissed off at Danchenko because he lied about Dolan's involvement, which wasted their time and the way they dealt with the FISA warrants. -- Valjean (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

When dealing with these new revelations, we need to maintain a cautious perspective at this early phase, hard as that may be. There are several places where some of this is relevant: Igor Danchenko, Christopher Steele, John Durham, and in a section here Steele_dossier#Discrepancies_between_sources_and_their_allegations. Some info might be relevant in other very specific places throughout the article where it's on-topic.

I sense that some feel these revelations (quite unclear at the moment) are earth-shaking. They are not, at least not yet. We have known for a long time that Danchenko lied to the FBI, but was not charged. As RS provide more clarification, specific changes can be made. That means the article will probably gradually morph to document more narratives (right now it has several), even though it has always contained plenty of strong criticism and content which casts doubt on the dossier, Steele, and his methods and sources. One overheated reaction to this news was evident today (elsewhere), and I replied: "Sussmann is not 'charged for Russian collusion.' Somehow people who believe The Former Guy think that slightly moving a remote, barely tangentially related, piece of the puzzle automatically means the Russians didn't interfere or the Trump campaign didn't have myriad illicit links with Russians they kept secret and lied about. Well, it happened and they did." The same applies here, so don't think that this proves that everything unreliable sources have written for a long time, without any evidence, but purely for partisan, conspiracy theory reasons, was right all along. Not so, but some might have guessed right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

As I wrote above, this is indeed very interesting and changes will be made as we get more information. Keep your eyes open for what actual RS write. Feel free to share quotes with refs here. We can then put it together into something usable. Also mention exactly where it's relevant, even if it might be most relevant in another article. Whatever helps Wikipedia is good. -- Valjean (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Wood

The article contains a sentence:BBC correspondent Paul Wood wrote that Steele had "20 to 30" sources for the dossier. Paul Wood actually wrote, in The Spectator, referring to Christopher Steele: But he is apparently convinced that the Russians have sexual kompromat of some kind on Trump, enough to blackmail him. Steele had ‘20 to 30’ sources for the dossier and in two decades as a professional intelligence officer he had never seen such complete agreement by such a wide range of sources. I removed the sentence with edit summary = "Removed quote attributed to Paul Wood. He wrote '20 to 30' inside quotes, which is what reporters do when they're quoting. So plausibly Paul Wood isn't saying it." But Valjean soon after re-inserted with edit summary = "Reverted good faith edits by Peter Gulutzan (talk): That may be, but we're attributing the content to him and readers can make up their own minds. How else could we deal with it? Woods is a subject matter expert who has interviewed Steele.". I'll try stating differently -- the problem is that we're attributing the content to Paul Wood when it's uncertain that the content is attributable to Paul Wood, so it's poorly sourced. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah! Now I understand your real point. Sorry about that. Would a longer quote work better?

BBC correspondent Paul Wood , writing in The Spectator, wrote: "Steele had '20 to 30' sources for the dossier and in two decades as a professional intelligence officer he had never seen such complete agreement by such a wide range of sources."

That gives the context, and the attribution should help. Does that work for you? -- Valjean (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I would not object to that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks for being so gracious with my failure to understand you. (Sometimes I get "language confused" as I speak two languages every day.) My apologies again. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Charles Dolan Jr.

The shit hits the fan:

A spin doctor with ties to Russia allegedly fed the Steele dossier before fighting to discredit it. Charles Dolan Jr., a PR executive who cut his teeth in Democratic politics, provided anti-Trump information, according to the special counsel probing the Russia investigation.

He plays all sides. -- Valjean (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Which sides? He is a long time Clinton associate with very close ties to Russian officials, apparently including Putin's inner circle. The article only mentions one sentence of him being critical of the dossier, with many paragraphs describing his actions behind it. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead too long?

Kolma8, you added a "too long lead" tag.

"This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article. Please read the layout guide and lead section guidelines to ensure the section will still be inclusive of all essential details. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page."

An uncomplicated and average-size article would normally have 3-4 paragraphs in the lead, while complicated and very large articles can have larger leads because 3-4 just can't do the job. This one has one more paragraph. Is it really an issue?

As far as I know, there is nothing in the lead that isn't in the body, so moving such content isn't an option. Possible unnecessary duplication of some details might occur, so that's one option. Also what might be non-"essential details" could be discussed. Do you have any specific suggestions? The article is indeed large, so a large lead is to be expected, but I'm certainly open to tweaking it if possible. Please help to thread that needle. -- Valjean (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it is too long and confusing. It would be nice if we can streamline it. Too many grinding sausages details in the lead section. Kolma8 (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. -- Valjean (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Some unnecessary details should be trimmed. Normchou ^💬 18:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I also agree some trims are necessary. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• I definitely don't agree with this removal. That accusation is a huge part of why the dosser is so well-known, so I don't feel we can omit it from the lead. As far as I can tell, it summarizes a key point from an entire top-level section from the article (here.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, that content is important, as my edit summary explained. That removal was improper, so thanks for restoring that content. -- Valjean (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WaPo corrects, removes parts of two stories regarding the Steele dossier

The Washington Post on Friday took the unusual step of correcting and removing large portions of two articles, published in March 2017 and February 2019, that had identified a Belarusian American businessman as a key source of the “Steele dossier,” a collection of largely unverified reports that claimed the Russian government had compromising information about then-candidate Donald Trump. The newspaper’s executive editor, Sally Buzbee, said The Post could no longer stand by the accuracy of those elements of the story. It had identified businessman Sergei Millian as “Source D,” the unnamed figure who passed on the most salacious allegation in the dossier to its principal author, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-washington-post-steele-dossier/2021/11/12/f7c9b770-43d5-11ec-a88e-2aa4632af69b_story.html

soibangla (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Good for them! (I suspect they are CYA and the whole truth hasn't come out, but this is a good precautionary move.) That means we follow what RS say and revise/update our content. I'm in a lot of pain and waiting for an emergency call from my physician right now so am a bit flaky with my Wikipedia time. soibangla, do you want to deal with this update? -- Valjean (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Steele dossier

Missing the words "false" "proven false" or "debunked" in introductory sentence 96.38.142.59 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources EvergreenFir (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

IP96, you missed the second sentence. All through the article we quote such words that diss the dossier, its author, and its sources, all from quotes published in RS. The narrative that it's all bunk and false is clearly documented throughout this article. The words you use might apply to specific allegations, but not to the whole thing. That would be false. There are several narratives published in RS, and we document all of them. That's how NPOV works. We do not take sides. -- Valjean (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Short description

This edit changed the short description. Edit summary Changing short description from "Political opposition research report alleging co-operation between the Trump campaign and Russia to help Trump win" to "Political opposition research report regarding the 2016 US election" (Shortdesc helper) .

I'd like to discuss what version to use, and I suspect a third alternative might be better. Srich32977, I'd first like to know your reasons for changing it. Was it the length or something else? -- Valjean (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: SDs should be a concise explanation of what the article is about. If you've got a shorter or more concise SD please have at it. – S. Rich (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Here are the two versions above and a third option which I think places more emphasis on the right aspect of the subject:

1. Political opposition research report alleging co-operation between the Trump campaign and Russia to help Trump win (114)
2. Political opposition research report regarding the 2016 US election (67)
3. Report alleging co-operation between Trump campaign and Russia (62)

What do you think? -- Valjean (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Number 2. "Allegation", by definition, means there is no proof. But it implies POV. – S. Rich (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Getting off on another topic. Copied to new section below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Srich32977: I want to make sure I understand you. Is the use of the word "allegation" a deciding factor for you? We have used it since the beginning of this article in a general, not legal, sense, IOW an allegation can be proven true, proven false, or remain unproven. So is that word so important? If so, we should reconsider how it is used in this whole article. Please share your thinking on this matter. -- Valjean (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Valjean The https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/allegation gives us lots of problematic synonyms. Let's avoid it. You are correct, a legal allegation sets out what someone expects to prove in court. But there is enough cross-over ambiguity in the two senses that we should avoid it. – S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC) That's a very helpful perspective. I don't recall that it has been raised as an issue before. The allegations section has mostly been my work, and I chose that word to remain neutral and not imply anything (positive, negative, or neutral) about each allegation. That is also because of the wide diversity of opinion about the veracity of each allegation. Therefore we let the RS talk in a whole section where the diversity of opinions are shared. Readers can come to their own conclusions. -- Valjean (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Do you have any suggestions about how to resolve this "situation"? I hesitate to call it a "problem" as it hasn't bothered anyone else, that I know of. -- Valjean (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC) @Srich32977: I'd like to resolve this issue. It's not good if a word widely used in the article is not the best word to use. That's an untenable situation. Do you have any suggestions? BTW, this Bloomberg article shows how the word allegation is used. -- Valjean (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the new one, number 2, is the best fit. The document is on more than just the allegation of Trump and Russia. PackMecEng (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

PME, is the election the main focus? Not at all. That is only tangential, and only in the context of Russian support for Trump as a divisive factor in American politics who favored Russia and could be relied on to aid Russian efforts to sow division. The dossier was commissioned to gather information on Trump's connections to Russia, and that was its focus. The dossier is the allegations, and nothing else, and the election is hardly mentioned in the allegations. It's all about Trump/Russia. -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging some experienced eyes: Soibangla, Starship.paint, Aquillion -- Valjean (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• (2) is too vague. (3) is vaguer than (1). (1) is fine. starship.paint (exalt) 01:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I too am fine with (1), even though it's a bit longer than recommended. How strict are they when dealing with the length issue? I know that a lead is generally supposed to be about four paragraphs, but longer leads are common for very large and complicated articles, and no one objects. I think we can do the same here with this SD. -- Valjean (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with S. Rich and support #2. Valjean be careful about just pinging editors who are likely to share your POV. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I fear I can't leave this alone for the following reason: the current version is literally misleading. The original version hints at the election ("co-operation between the Trump campaign and Russia to help Trump win"), but the current version ignores the cooperation, and that is the gist of the whole dossier. My version places focus on that as it's the main theme of the dossier. -- Valjean (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A short description is not the lead. It is supposed to be the shortest way to describe a topic, which number 2 does the best job of. Again, the co-operation angle of it is only part of the document. Your version was basically a NPOV violation. PackMecEng (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The quick way to shorten this topic is to adopt

The Steele dossier is highly political opposition research report prepared by democratic party operatives regarding the Donald Trumps Relationship with Russia as a Private Citizen. It critcal legacy is that it was reported as fact by many news outlets, used in congressional inquiries, used to support FBI investigations for years after many other news sources, public releases and congressional inquiries had debunked the material items. Vast majority of the statements of fact within the dossier were always reported as unsubstantiated but were washed into perceived creditability by multiple players in a echo chamber of hersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopbackdude (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post corrections

The corrections relate to two articles: March 29, 2017 - this article in its original form seems to be used as a source in n.74. February 07, 2019 - in n.76. The Washington Post is clearly an unreliable source on this topic, so it's not unreasonable to expect all references to it to be expunged before the article can be further edited. Shtove (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

We should certainly re-examine with a critical eye the content sourced to the WaPo. The more astounding and troubling part is that they won a Pulitzer Prize in part for this reporting. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, that is not true. Their reporting was about Russian interference and is correct:

Read our Pulitzer-prize winning coverage of Russian meddling in the 2016 election

The 2018 Pulitzer Prize Winner in National Reporting: Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post, Pulitzer Organization

"For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)"

That reporting was correct. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Shtove, the historical record in the relevant parts of the article has been updated with the new reports. We do not blanket remove a source because an article it published was not accurate, especially when it has received wide coverage. We document the correction. To pretend that an inaccurate allegation never happened is wrong. That's why the original, widely-published, allegation, along with the correction, must be published to set the record straight. We document history here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, the principal editors of this article should identify every assertion that relies on the Washington Post as the sole source, and put the continued inclusion of those assertions up for discussion. Shtove (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources issue corrections when necessary. Unreliable sources do not. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Editors should reconsider how they evaluate sources. Any source that repeatedly sows doubt about the facts that Russia interfered in the election, that their goal was to put Trump in power, and that Trump and his campaign lied about and cooperated with that interference, or make claims that Trump won the 2020 election and that it was stolen from him by Biden, that climate change isn't serious, that vaccines are unsafe, that Trump is truthful in any sense, etc. is not a RS. Those sources are the ones that should be removed and deprecated. We all know which sources do that, and that those sources are often defended here at Wikipedia. The Washington Post and the New York Times are not such sources. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean's excellent point. I find myself researching sources beyond the deprecated list, right along with any subject. Lindenfall (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources issue corrections as soon as possible - not after four years, on the back of information they should have considered in the first place. Please don't make excuses for a bad-faith actor. Shtove (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a great point. The only reason we know about any of this is because of an ongoing investigation that most Democrats would like to see shut down. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no bad faith here. Quite the contrary, they circled back, way back, to correct reporting when new information surfaced that they obviously could not have foreseen. This is a prime example of good journalism. soibangla (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Could not have foreseen? A journalist is supposed to investigate to make sure what they are reporting is correct. They took these statements at face value and uncritically reprinted them as fact. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Journalists are humans and just as fallible as the rest of us. I imagine that they investigated the statements at the time and decided that they could run with them, based on what was known at the time. We should not be expecting perfection. That's unreasonable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes yes, we all know the narrative that fake news reporters are merely stenographers who believe and report whatever some guy tells them as long as it fits their predetermined narrative. That's just not the way it is. soibangla (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What we have here is correction/removal of reporting that has not been shown to be false, but rather has been called into question, and was fixed in an abundance of caution. In his indictment, Durham suggests — but does not say outright — that Danchenko may have relied on information provided by Dolan to fuel the most salacious accusation to come out of the dossier: that Trump supposedly had a liaison with Russian prostitutes in a Moscow hotel[10] Not only has Dolan not been indicted, he isn't even identified in the indictment, and we haven't heard a word from him. This correction/removal does not necessarily mean WaPo got it wrong and Millian is exonerated, it simply means that doubts have been raised by Durham's suggestion in his indictment of Danchenko, which now must be incorporated into the reporting. But as usual, some eagerly jump on the "fake news made up the dossier!" train. soibangla (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

Please include how the Dossier was originally funded by a GOP allied newspaper, The Washington Free Beacon and its owner, Paul Singer.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-inside-story-of-christopher-steeles-trump-dossier 196.132.103.78 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done The article already includes this in Steele dossier#Research funded by conservative website. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Simpson

In Legacy and mentioned more times than Devin Nunez and the House.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devin_Nunes

The political legacy of the dossier is still being written but Glenn Simpson is a internal player making as statement and not a creditable legacy commenter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopbackdude (talk • contribs) 12:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

We do seem to give him way to much coverage, why?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Because, like Steele, he is one of the players and ABOUTSELF applies. That makes it natural that he'd be mentioned in an article that in some respects involves himself. If there is any mention that is UNDULY SELFSERVING, then that should be checked, but if it's informative, then it's interesting and useful. It's a judgment call, so, per NPOV, enmity toward the subject should not be a factor in the decision. -- Valjean (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history

Axios has a new piece out, calling the Steele Dossier “ one of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history.” See here for the full story. The media continues to point to the dossier’s flaws, and I think we need to conform more to that approach in our article. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no "approach" in that brief and inconclusive little piece. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Is any of this second guessing unrelated to Durham's allusion to Dolan in the Danchenko indictment? If not, then should we rely on that allusion related to an allegation as a basis for second guessing? Wouldn't that kinda be like asserting the dossier is true without proof? soibangla (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be adding our own interpretations behind the sourcing instead of just using what the reliable sources say. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I wholly agree, and I am aware there are some off-wiki who are connecting dots that have no business being connected to make insinuations (color me shocked). Again, what WaPo reported: Durham suggests — but does not say outright — that Danchenko may have relied on information provided by Dolan... soibangla (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This line in the lead "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated, in particular its main finding that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians." is no longer supported by reliable sources. See, for example, how the Intelligencer describes it - "many of the dossier’s key claims have failed to materialize or have been shown to be false." We have direct contradictions, and I believe the recent sourcing is more accurate than what CNN and Newsweek were writing in 2017. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oddly that source does not contain the word "Putin", indeed "many of the dossier’s key claims have failed to materialize or have been shown to be false." does not in any way contradict "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated, in particular its main finding that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians." in fact it reinforces it somewhat as it does not say "all" or even "most" it says "many".Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If you don't see a contradiction, should we add what the Intelligencer says in 2021 to the CNN description from 2017 ("Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated")? Maybe at the end of the sentence? I've also seen good sources saying that this claim from the Dissuer that Putin and Russia favored Trump was not even something Steele came up with, but was from generally available news reports at the time. So calling it a "main finding" is also outdated. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the CIA had a mole near Putin's inner circle who said Putin planned and orchestrated pro-Trump interference, but I don't see how that obviates that the dossier reported it. soibangla (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really as I am unsure adding "but some have not been" adds anything that "but some have not been" as it seems to be obvious that some have not been if only some have been. As to the main findings, well apart from Putin favoring Trump and meeting between people, what else does the dossier contain that is more important?Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Part of this discussion is a little bit duplicating one up above, about the "main" finding. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

failed to materialize or have been shown to be false. What's the breakdown between those two? And failed to materialize to whom? The press, that doesn't have the intelligence capabilities to verify many things, or the intelligence community that does have those capabilities but they aren't talking? soibangla (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The source doesn't clarify. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, so what we have is that over the passage of years the press, with limited capabilities, has been unable to confirm or disprove most of the dossier, which should not be construed to mean it's been shown to be false. soibangla (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to interpret "many of the dossier’s key claims have failed to materialize or have been shown to be false" any way you like, but it's a very simple phrase and I think most readers would clearly understand what that text means. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Unconfirmed does not necessarily mean false, especially when it comes to what is publicly known. soibangla (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is grasping at straws to promote a non-NPOV narrative. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Which RS content are you saying is non-NPOV? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It's your article content proposals that are non-NPOV. Sources, reliable or not, speak only for themselves. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(Copied from above, as it's relevant here.)

Mr Ernie, are you seriously proposing that we label the "main finding", the one that is undoubtedly proven true, as "false", "rumor", "unproven" and "simply inaccurate"? That makes no sense. This one "materialized" in spades, even though it took the intelligence community six months to reach the same conclusion (that Steele did in July 2016) and the ODNI publish it on January 6, 2017.

Choose your battles more carefully. Find an allegation that is actually proven inaccurate or false (there are a few, some of which are spelling errors), not the one that is the truest of them all. (Yes, Putin put TFG in power!) Then actually study how we treat that allegation in this article. I suspect you will usually be disappointed to discover we do not treat it as undisputedly true. Instead we present what various, and often conflicting, RS say about it, which is what we're supposed to do. -- Valjean (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Warrants on Carter Page "after he left the Trump campaign"

@Soibangla: What does this point you made have to do with the statement The dossier played a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page? Your it is important to note should be supported by RSes, or else it is just MOS:EDITORIALization. Without RSes, you are introducing a trivial detail in the lead that is WP:UNDUE. Normchou ^💬 21:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Normchou: It's not a trivial detail, it's vitally important, and I can further clutter the lead with RS to show he was tapped as early as 2013 and again in Oct 2016 after he left the campaign, if you insist. The fact Page was tapped leads many to believe the Trump campaign was tapped. soibangla (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I still can't see any direct link between the statement that the Steele dossier (the subject of this article) was a major contributor to the FBI's seeking of warrants on Carter Page and your statement that he was tapped (NOT the subject of this article hence WP:UNDUE, regardless of how many RSes you have for the latter). I think you digressed too much. Normchou ^💬 21:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

How the dossier was and was not used is vital to understanding this article. It was used to get a warrant on a former Trump aide, but it was not used to spy on the Trump campaign, as many believe because of a flawed syllogism: Page was on the Trump campaign, Page was tapped, therefore the Trump campaign was tapped. soibangla (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It was used to get a warrant on a former Trump aide, but it was not used to spy on the Trump campaign. Correct, but nothing in the lead implies the latter. Normchou ^💬 21:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Explain why it needs to be implied. It's simply a statement as to when the dossier was used. soibangla (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Explain why it needs to be implied. It's simply a statement as to when the dossier was used. Then what you've included is a trivial detail unworthy of inclusion in the lead. Do you realize you basically destroyed your own argument for why it should be included? Normchou ^💬 21:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing of the kind is correct. soibangla (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Normchou and soibangla, I have split this off as its own topic thread. I hope that's alright -- Valjean (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

This entire Wikipedia entry needs to be updated. The very first paragraph needs a statement asserting the document is discredited as of November 2021.

This dossier has been widely discredited after lies to the FBI have been exposed. Your article dives into elements of the dossier at length without mentioning the recent indictments. It needs to be stated right up front that the document has been widely discredited through statements made by sources. Not writing this in the first paragraph is deceptive. While you’re at it, update the Trump Wikipedia page with this info also. 71.223.62.133 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

See all the talk page discussion above.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Lede or lead?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bury-the-lede-versus-lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.158.231 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Editors use both terms, but they are all referring to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section. -- Valjean (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite needed to correct balance and update

This article is outdated, cleanup needed.

• The sources that WaPo had to edit to correct are used in this article and will need to be checked.
• There are now three indictments/pleas well covered in mainstream sources (Danchenko, Clinesmith, and Sussmann). Samples: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

Besides being outdated, the article still reads as if the alleged Danchenko lies were fact; with the media having to correct their own dated articles, Wikipedia needs to do same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The article includes:

On November 12, 2021, following the November 4 indictment of Igor Danchenko, The Washington Post corrected and removed the "parts of two stories regarding the Steele dossier" that identified Millian as a source.

Clinesmith's involvement is tangential to the dossier itself because he altered an email about Page being a CIA source, which went into the warrant request as the dossier did, though they aren't related, and the lead states:

The dossier played a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page.

Sussmann is not involved with the dossier. soibangla (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Already done Yes, the requested corrections were already made before this thread was started, so let's mark this as  Done. -- Valjean (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I see a still glaringly unbalanced article, which has not been corrected to the needed top-to-bottom rewrite to reflect that it was always based on lies, and yet the tags were removed. Perhaps this from The Nation will help get this article reoriented in terms of hoax v reality.

• https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-russiagate-steele-dossier/

Even The Nation had this months ago, WaPo is redacting articles, NYT is begrudgingly making a few admissions, but Wikipedia continues to trail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That piece is commentary. Furthermore, it is by Aaron Maté (read the extensively-sourced section of his article on the Aaron_Maté#Special_Counsel_Investigation special council investigation, as well as The Grayzone, which is the main place he writes for), who has expressed extremely strident opinions on this topic along those lines from the start - it is not an exaggeration to say that what Maté is most famous for today is his strident across-the-board criticism of any reports linking Trump to Russia, in any venue. It would obviously be WP:UNDUE to rewrite the entire article "from top to bottom" around his personal opinions; and it is misleading to present his opinions as a dramatic turnaround when they reflect opinions he held since the start. WP:BIASED sources like Maté can be used, with caution and in-line citations, to cover the opinions they express when notable; they cannot be used to structure or rewrite an entire article without violating WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Also note that even Maté - perhaps the most strident and opinionated columnist expressing the position you're suggesting we rewrite the article to reflect - does not use words like "lies" or "hoax"; he makes sweeping accusations against people he disagrees with, but never goes as far as you are here. Meanwhile, I'll note that you concede that the NYT (which, obviously, is a much higher-quality source than Maté's personal opinions) has not treated the things you are demanding we rewrite the article about as particularly significant - you characterize it as begrudgingly making a few admissions, but from the other perspective, taking the NYT as the paper of record, that suggests that very little has actually changed. You might disagree with that, and feel that the NYT should be making sweeping changes instead - but if they're only making a few minor corrections, you can't expect dramatic shifts to our article. --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mate reports sourced facts. His characterisation of the pattern of nonsense and misdirection arising from this dossier is entirely valid, and is not mere opinion. Here's an opinion: this article will eventually settle down as a record of how Wikipedia was used to embed false information into internet searches. Shtove (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You can have that opinion, but Aquillion is right. Maté is a pusher of the "Russiagate" conspiracy theory. He is one who parrots the party line we have seen all along from unreliable sources. They blow up the slightest imperfection in the dossier to then claim that proves that the Russians did not interfere in the election (or not very much, or not enough to really help TFG), and that the FBI did put a spy in the Trump campaign. Both claims are false. The Russians did interfere on a large scale to help Trump (and he welcomed and cooperated with their efforts), and the FBI never put any spy in the campaign, and their investigation of the campaign was not for political reasons. Maté pushes those "Russiagate" lies. He is not credible. -- Valjean (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, yes, it's frustrating that Wikipedia is always behind the curve, but that's how we are supposed to be, so be patient. We have made changes, as noted above (you griped about things that had already been fixed!), and more changes are to come. You need to be specific. We do not totally rewrite articles based on a few generalized opinions and gripes. We document history, and this article will show what was right, what was wrong, and how it got exposed/corrected. General gripes don't help us, especially from journalists and commentators that don't know what they are talking about (IOW actual counterfactual commentary (Maté is one), not just biased remarks). Many of them know less than we do, as we look at all the RS (I also stay informed about unreliable ones). We're seeing lots of junk commentary in RS lately, but there are some serious articles and fact-checks from good sources that are specific and very usable. We'll get that content into the article, but it needs to be in the right places. That isn't always easy, because it often creates duplication because we already comment on the issue. Some belongs here and some at other articles (Steele, Danchenko, Millian, Cohen, etc.) This WaPo fact-check is one good recent source:

The Steele dossier: A guide to the latest allegations

We rewrite specific spots that are in need of changing, so your gripes would be more constructive if they mentioned specific topics and the sources to use. Writing (and even attributed quoting of opinions) in the lead, of blanket false statements would be wrong, statements like the dossier is "false", "fake", "debunked", etc. Some of that may prove to be true, but right now it is, at worst, only partially true, because there are significant areas where it has been proven true. The ODNI report confirmed some of its main findings. We have never written that the allegations are all true. Most are unproven and will remain that way, but that doesn't make them false. We just don't know, and saying they are false, without evidence, is wrong. OTOH, we do note what RS say about those allegations which are suspect, and it isn't always nice. That has always been the case here, but far too many editors who haven't read the whole article and all its sources just drop by and complain that we don't have a big "FAKE" written in the first sentence. We can't accommodate them. -- Valjean (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Harding on Rosneft sale and Carter Page

TheTimesAreAChanging, I fear that some OR reasoning is trumping a properly-attributed quote in this deletion, using this edit summary:

"Harding is just wrong about this, or confused. As discussed previously, the plan to partially privatize 19.5% of Rosneft was publicly announced as far back as 2013, and throughout 2016 there was press coverage of the looming deadline for the sale to go through by the end of the year (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-29/rosneft-ceo-said-to-pitch-16-billion-double-deal-to-sway-putin). That the sale happened as scheduled did surprise many observers; Steele's reporting was not novel."

Here's the deleted content:

"Luke Harding wrote that "Steele's Rosneft source was right" about the sale: "This was one of the biggest privatizations since the 1990s ... Steele's mole had known about the plan months before Rosneft's management board was informed. The board only discovered the deal on December 7, hours after Sechin had already recorded his TV meeting with Putin revealing it. Even the Russian cabinet had been kept in the dark.""

Page was always evasive and uncooperative, but when under oath he was more careful. His congressional testimony confirmed what Steele's sources claimed (and unknown to the media), that Page held secret meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials, including talks about a payoff: "When Page was asked if a Rosneft executive had offered him a 'potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft, Page said, 'He may have briefly mentioned it.'"

IIRC, we have discussed this before, but I don't remember all the details. Yes, the plan to make a sale was known to some, but Harding makes other points. Also, that the sale might end up being used as part of a secret quid pro quo deal was not public knowledge. The fact of a sale is one thing, the way it could be leveraged as a carrot to induce Trump to make good on his intentions to lift the sanctions is another. Carter Page's actions and travel at the time of the sale are also suspicious and unexplained by any public records, and much of Steele's reporting about many subjects, including this one, gives background info that explains public events. That's why many of the allegations can never be proven, but they can still be true. Such unconfirmed allegations are always rated as probable cause for the police and FBI to open investigations. An analogy: Two men plan to rob your house and a neighbor kid overhears them discussing their plans. They commit the crime and the police suspect them but have no proof. The neighbor kid tells the police about their secret conversation. It's hearsay evidence and can't be used, but it does give valuable information that explains the plans behind the publicly known fact that your house was burgled. That's the nature of many of the allegations. They explain the behind-the-scenes activities and motives for events the press was describing. Steele's sources tied these public events to the secretive and lied about the actions of Trump and his campaign.

Since his own testimony under oath lends support to the allegation that a quid pro quo deal may have occurred, and this content is a properly-sourced opinion from a subject matter expert about that allegation, I believe we should keep it. That doesn't mean it can't be improved, but complete deletion is uncalled for. -- Valjean (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Harding has been the source behind a number of questionable if not outright false Russiagate stories, most notably the claim that Manafort met with Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, which has been widely discredited. His opinion here is UNDUE and inaccurate, as opinions often are. To review the underlying facts:

• The Rosneft "privatization" was first announced all the way back in 2013. ("In Moscow, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's cabinet announced plans to sell a 19 percent stake in Rosneft this year as part of its broader privatization efforts, a far larger stake than previously envisaged."—Reuters, April 11, 2013.)
• The sale was repeatedly delayed, and the Russian government was under a deadline to find a buyer by the end of 2016. ("Russia could then earn another US$11 billion by proceeding with its delayed sale of 19.5 percent of Rosneft itself, generating a US$16 billion windfall that would cut this year's projected deficit in half, they said."—Bloomberg, August 29, 2016.)
• For a long time, it appeared that no foreign investor was willing to bite due to Western sanctions, and the Russian press reported in October 2016 that "Rosneft will buy its own shares for resale."
• However, as noted by The New York Times, a last minute deal was reached on December 7: "The Russian government announced Wednesday that it will sell nearly 20 percent of its state oil company, Rosneft, to the Swiss commodity trading firm Glencore and the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar. The deal defies expectations that no investor would dare buy a share in the Russian asset, given Western sanctions against the government of Vladimir V. Putin. ... The agreement came as a surprise twist in the privatization of Rosneft. With an end-of-the-year deadline looming, no buyers had come forward for the 19.5 percent share in the world's largest publicly traded oil company, as measured by production and reserves. The apparent lack of bidders was a pessimistic sign for investor interest in Russia. The Russian government had for most of the year planned to sell shares back to the majority state-owned company itself, which would hardly have qualified as a genuine privatization." [emphasis added]
• Steele's memo dated October 18, 2016, claims that Rosneft head Igor Sechin personally met with Page and offered him (and Trump) a quid pro quo in which they could personally benefit from the planned sale in exchange for Trump lifting U.S. sanctions on Russia imposed in response to Russian activity in Ukraine. Contrary to your speculation above and elsewhere, which itself seems to be influenced by WP:OR, there is no public information to confirm any of that, and the FBI never charged Page with anything (not even lying) when he stated that "beyond a shadow of a doubt, there was never any negotiations, or any quid pro quo, or any offer, or any request even, in any way related to sanctions." I disagree with your softening of Corn and Isikoff's words on this point, and your apparent insistence that situationally-reliable (per WP:RSP) Newsweek from January 2018 gets the last word.

That said, Harding's confused opinion/speculation isn't even closely related to the substantive issues above. The disputed text is: "Steele's mole had known about the plan months before Rosneft's management board was informed. The board only discovered the deal on December 7, hours after Sechin had already recorded his TV meeting with Putin revealing it. Even the Russian cabinet had been kept in the dark." Yes, as The New York Times reported on December 7, 2016 (see above), the last-minute sale "came as a surprise twist in the privatization of Rosneft. With an end-of-the-year deadline looming, no buyers had come forward for the 19.5 percent share in the world's largest publicly traded oil company, as measured by production and reserves. The apparent lack of bidders was a pessimistic sign for investor interest in Russia. The Russian government had for most of the year planned to sell shares back to the majority state-owned company itself, which would hardly have qualified as a genuine privatization. [ ... ]" However, "Steele's mole" did not know about or predict this surprise December 7 sale. Rather, Steele's memo dated October 18, 2016 referred to Russia's ongoing (and thus-far fruitless) attempts to find a buyer for the shares, using language similar to that found in Bloomberg et al. weeks or months prior.

In sum, OR is permitted on talk pages (as you well know, given that your own comments not infrequently include a liberal amount of it) and can inform our decision to cover yet another non-notable opinion in this encyclopedia article. You have cited Harding fairly extensively, and I have not challenged that, but I contest the usefulness of this misleading opinion, even presented in quotes with attribution, as UNDUE. Thanks for reading,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'my only interjecting to add more evidence that Valjean is wrong to claim that Mr Carter's "own testimony under oath lends support to the allegation that a quid pro quo deal may have occurred". Pretty well the opposite, according to a transcript of HPSCI Testimony: (talking about Andrey Baranov):"MR. PAGE: -- nothing to do with whatsoever. And, again, it's an investor relations person. He talks about things that are in the market. You know, this is a major market -- MR. SCHIFF: And in July, did you discuss with him the potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft? MR. PAGE: I don't believe so. He may have mentioned it in passing. I can't remember the exact timing of when that became public information. There were definitely rumors of it in the early part of the summer. MR. SCHIFF: So in- MR. PAGE: There was never any discussion of any -- my involvement in that deal in any way, shape, or form. And, again, the meeting in July -- MR. SCHIFF: Dr. Page- MR. PAGE: -- was a -- we were at a soccer game, and so we were watching the soccer game. MR. SCHIFF: Dr. Page, this is my specific question: Did you or did you not discuss with Mr. Baranov in July a potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft? MR. PAGE: I can't recall any discussion. MR. SCHIFF: So you may have, but you don't recall. MR. PAGE: He may have briefly mentioned it when we were looking up from this Portugal -- Ronaldo, whoever the -- you know, the goals that are being scored. That may have come up. But I have no definitive recollection of that. And, certainly, what never came up, certainly, was my involvement in any — that type of a transaction."Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, I didn't even get to this, but as Peter Gulutzan states, Mayer (and this Wikipedia article) materially misrepresent Page's November 2, 2017 testimony, specifically the exchange between Page and Schiff regarding the pending Rosneft sale. The official transcript (pp. 136-141, especially p. 139) shows that Page replied "He may have briefly mentioned it" in response to the following question by Schiff: "Dr. Page, this is my specific question: Did you or did you not discuss with Mr. Baranov in July a potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft?" Mayer turned that into:

According to the Democrats' report, when Page was asked if a Rosneft executive had offered him a "potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft," Page said, "He may have briefly mentioned it." [emphasis added]

However, Page actually testified that if the pending sale was discussed at all, it would have been "in passing" and "There was never any discussion of  ... my involvement in that deal in any way, shape, or form" (p. 139). It is obvious to even a casual reader that Schiff's question did not include the additional clause about the sale (or brokerage) being offered to him; that is simply an error in Mayer's reporting, misattributed "to the Democrats' report" (presumably the Schiff memo, released a couple of weeks before her article went to print, but which does not in fact contain the same error).

Realistically, we should drop this inaccurate statement from Mayer, but I didn't even try (yet) because I imagine that Valjean will say that reading the transcript is OR. Of course, this content is likely a WP:BLP violation against Page, and there is no OR involved in simply not putting demonstrable misquotations in Wikipedia articles, plus I might well question why Valjean relied on Mayer for this information when many other sources covered it accurately, but ... I'll leave that alone for now. Suffice it to say that if Valjean was sincerely misinformed by Mayer in good faith to believe that Page admitted he was offered the bribe recounted by Steele (albeit by Baranov rather than Sechin), then that may well explain his (mistaken, by all available evidence) view that "Steele was essentially right." In addition, situationally-reliable Newsweek probably should not be cited in this way at all, because it is clear from the transcript that Page made no such admission.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I get my beliefs and opinions (some are clearly OR, just for discussion) from RS that discuss the dossier. Primary sources that mention the same events, but not in connection with the dossier, are off-limits for content. That's why some of the sources above are interesting but unusable here. That would be OR. That's why Mayer and Harding are usable, and many of the sources above about the Rosneft sale cannot be used.

Carter Page's statements in general and under oath cannot be taken at face value. He minimizes and evades all the time, so we should not be naive. Keep in mind that he publicly went from claiming he never spoke to ANY Russian officials, to under oath forced to grudgingly admit contacts with many TOP officials. (Why would a flunky like him speak with any of them? Think about that.) Yet, when speaking to the campaign about his July 2016 trip to Moscow, he reported that he had spoken to many top officials about very interesting things. Then he publicly lied that he hadn't met any. He's a master at double talk and evasion. He is not credible. No wonder the FBI suspects him of being a Russian agent worthy of investigation.

I hope you've noticed I have not returned the deleted content about "Steele's mole". It's not essential. Your explanations are not without effect. -- Valjean (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that, Valjean.

On a separate but related matter, do you think that you are at the point where you would be willing to consider tweaking the line from Mayer about Page supposedly admitting that he was offered "a payoff" during his November 2017 congressional testimony to reflect the points raised by Peter Gulutzan and myself above, or is that a bridge too far for you at this time? Keep in mind that I am not suggesting we should take Page's testimony at face value—I am merely suggesting that we should not misquote him when we have the transcript available and it does not include the "offered him" language introduced by Mayer. Furthermore, CNN had an entire article devoted to Page's testimony within a week of his appearance, which is much more accurate than Mayer's passing account and makes clear that while Page admitted meeting with the head of Rosneft's investor relations, he was adamant that no quid pro quo (as alleged in the dossier) was discussed. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm copying your last comment to a new section to make this easier to deal with as it's a slightly different, but related, topic. -- Valjean (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References