Talk:Steele dossier

Grassley-Graham Memo

"Accordlingly, we are referring Christopher Steele to the Department of Justice for potential violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001"Phmoreno (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

+

References

Well that was redacted to meaninglessness. I think we need to wait until any court case so we can in actuality see the accusations beyond "He did something".Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also a primary source, but secondary RS will pick up on it and comment. Then we'll have something we can use here. In fact, there has already been commentary, and British intelligence is very upset. Treating a trusted and reliable source this way has a chilling effect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC) (Self redacted. BullRangifer (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC))

And this is pretty much soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it is starting to be picked up Fox, Slate, and Bloomberg. Should probably be added here and Nunes memo. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe what I'm reading above, not to mention the manner in which my updates were received by what appears to be OWN. It was perfectly fine to create not one, but two articles based on nothing but unsubstantiated allegations, yet now that new information has surfaced that doesn't fit the prevailing POV narrative here, despite the fact that MSM has published this information, it is being refused? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This certainly has relevance to this article, but I'm seeing much of connection to the Nunes memo.- MrX 🖋 18:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The tie is the sources are making that connection and how it validates parts of the Nunes memos. PackMecEng (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, there is much more that needs to be added to this article in addition to (Pt 1) Nunes' memo. Since Trump's tweets are relevant as are actual documents and letters, the content of the FBI's (rather forced) release of relevant text messages as well as the criminal referral of Steele by Grassley-Graham (letter) would be of equal importance. There's also the litigation against Buzz Feed for publishing the dossier which should also be included, as there are ample RS that can be cited, such as Daily Caller, Reuters, Washington Times, Politico, CNN, and plenty of others. All views about Steele's credibility need to be stated, too. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is refusing to cover this. It will get the coverage it deserves.

BTW, Daily Caller, although not on our blacklist, is not a RS, and to a lesser degree the same applies to The Washington Times. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, so is CNN according to Media Bias Fact Check - it gets the same rating as Daily Caller but I already explained to you about what constitutes a RS. I can post it again if you need it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not clear on why "mediabiasfactcheck.com" is at all relevant to the reliability of a source. I think multiple people have already explained to you about how you don't actually seem to understand what constitutes a RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of Media Bias Fact Check and it doesn't appear WP has either. In any case, if they rate Daily Caller and CNN the same, they are clearly not RS. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

They used to be more useful, but they are user generated, like IMDB, and subject to manipulation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right now, my eyes are on the Nunes memo (part 1). I would be interested to know what anyone thinks is missing from that article. I don't think the Daily caller is really considered a reliable source (isn't it a blog started by someone who quit Breitbart in a huff?). I would steer away from the Washington Times also.- MrX 🖋 19:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see the Washington Times is consider a reliable source according to RSN. PackMecEng (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. It's a moonie paper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to take it to RSN but so far they say it is fine for the most part. PackMecEng (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"but so far they say it is fine for the most part" - except they don't. Come on, it's not like this is hard to check [1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup that is the most recent I saw for it as well. That discussion also lists past discussions on it as well. Saying yup reliable, maybe not top tier but certainly useable. PackMecEng (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm also not clear on what exactly people want to do with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You sure that is the one that you saw? Because what it actually says is:

" WT regularly publishes fringe theories"

" WT uses the fonts and style of a reliable source, but the content is frequently quite poor and it's best avoided in most cases"

And other discussions say similar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like cherry picking. We could also go with "he Washington Times probably meets rs" or "My initial thoughts are that it's reliable" or "I don't split hairs. It is a reliable source" or "While no doubt the WT meets the low standards of rs" or "The Washington times has rarely been caught in synthesis or exaggeration of the news in all its 30 years of history". So generally yes, it meets RS. I am not sure the push back you have for this. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Justice Department is clearly a primary RS and that is acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines for something that is not subject to mis-interpretation, namely that Steele was referred for criminal investigation. Furthermore, it is backed by valid secondary RS's. Where is it going? It questions the credibility of the dossier, along with much other information that has been revealed in the last two weeks, such as Steele leaking info to Yahoo News that was cited in FISA warrant on Carter Page, who by the way was an FBI informant who supplied information leading to the prosecution of s Russian spy just months before Page was named as a foreign agent (spy) in a Title 1 FISA.Phmoreno (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

One more time. I don't care about your personal opinions. What are you proposing with regard to the article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not my opinion, just facts. As for improving the article, include more of the facts, starting with Steel being referred for criminal investigation and Steele leaking to Yahoo. Phmoreno (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

" It questions the credibility of the dossier" <-- opinion, not fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read anyone say that the FBI needed a tip from Lindsey Graham to know whether to investigate Steele. He's been front page news for roughly a year. FBI is on the job. Phil, do you really think this is noteworthy as anything other than sabotage? Read how mainstream sources describe the Congressional Republicans' manouevring SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Phil, we need to include what widespread mainstream RS secondary sources report. Please read WP:WEIGHT. The sources will guide us to determine which facts we need more of and which facts we don't need to put in an encyclopedia article. The referral and the discussion with Isikoff have been known for some time and so what? They're mainly of interest in the context of the conspiracy theories promoted by Nunes and the memo and the defamation of Isikoff as part of that initiative. That breathless Fox news video clip is quite something "...he was desperate to make sure Trump would not be elected President..." Question Phil. If you had just inadvertently discovered that a presidential candidate appeared to be compromised by a hostile power, what would you do? Chill out with tea and crumpets? SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, read the MSM sources I've already cited which include statements of fact that are verifiable. How can you possibly argue in favor of exclusion for acts of the congressional investigative committees - House & Senate - that have been published by multiple sources? The arguments against inclusion are not convincing, and are clearly POV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme! It's even worse than that... I am the one who argued we didn't need to cover Dr. Jackson's medical media show after POTUS had his annual physical. When in doubt, leave it out! SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the argument here is, but from my impression of what we already have in this article, I think we're only missing one thing: the underlying allegation, which is directly related to the dossier and discussed here. ^Falling_Gravity 05:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Good addition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Newsweek the Steele's criminal referral was for "inconsistencies", "Lying to FBI". Phmoreno (talk) 01:07, February 20, 2018‎ (UTC)

Phmoreno, that's an excellent find. I have added it here. If you feel it should be worded differently or placed in a better location, feel free to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Fox News? Seriously?Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous sources

We don't know who they are, nor are we supposed to...at this point in the investigation. Steele knows their names, and so do some other people in intelligence, and Robert Mueller has probably interviewed them. We will never know who they are, or their lives and jobs will be compromised. They will also be useless as sources in the future. That's how these things are supposed to work.

• Anonymous ≠ non-existent/unknown

(Yes, this is really "duh" information, but some people often mention "anonymous sources", as if it were a valid argument to diss the dossier. It's not.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What is important to this article is not the unsubstantiated allegations and "unknown Russian sources" that Steele colluded with while gathering opposition research for the DNC & Clinton campaign. The important information should be focused on the facts that have been compiled by the intelligence community, part of which involves a criminal referral on Steele per the following RS: Fox News, Slate, Politico, and The Hill. It appears at least one house of cards is collapsing, and the information needs to be included in this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Really need to quit it with the WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The criminal referral involves: 1. Him not tellinh the FBI about media contacts. 2. Made by a politically motivated GOP Senator. I don't see anything that discredits the document here. Do you?Casprings (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It establishes him as a unreliable source for court processes. As more and more of the FISA stuff is shown to not be possible without the dossier, the author being a unreliable source would not be a good thing. But does it directly discredit the dossier itself? Not really, just the investigation as a whole as honestly very few people took the dossier as fact to begin with. PackMecEng (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It establishes him as a unreliable source for court processes... according to some Wikipedia editor named PackMecEng.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Which we both know, is the best source around! But as noted below it is starting to get more coverage. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Casprings but your argument for exclusion is not convincing. NPOV is policy, and this article is lacking in that department. The criminal referral involves Christopher Steele, it is published in RS the same way all the unsubstantiated allegations in the dossier were published (in 2 articles) and should be included as well as the litigations against Buzz Feed for publishing the dossier as I mentioned above. The winning argument here has been that we include what MSM reports. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC) ^{Adding another RS CNN 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)}

I see nothing in these articles that suggest collusion, that suggests any house of cards is collapsing, or suggests it establishes him as a unreliable source for court processes. These are all SYNTH and POV. O3000 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Several mention collusion with Steele and the Clinton campaign. Others right now are opinion sources we would have to attribute to them for sources on Steele being unreliable, so that can wait. PackMecEng (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I looked at each link again and see nothing about collusion. Repeating this here would appear to raise BLP issues. O3000 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Several mention collusion with Steele and the Clinton campaign" <--- what in the world does this even mean???? "Collusion" between an employer and employee? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Steele did not know about DNC/Clinton as the ultimate customers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

1. What exactly is any of this about? It's like there's some part of a conversation missing, probably because 2. This isn't a forum so quit speculating about what you think is collapsing or not collapsing or whatever else.

Focus on article improvement rather than pushing your own idiosyncratic theories. There's twitter for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What we need to focus on is NPOV, not the POV pushing arguments of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. The arguments I've been reading for not including this important information are the same arguments that were shot down when this article was created - are we dealing with a double standard? The spin-off article was created on the same unsubstantiated allegations that comprise the dossier - one in the same - and now many of the same editors who supported inclusion of unsubstantiated allegations are opposing statements of fact. The IDONTLIKEIT and DIDNTHEARTHAT arguments are unconvincing, and disruptive. Please, let's not escalate this any further than it has already advanced. Where is MelanieN? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, no one has suggested we shouldn't mention this. Contribute, rather than complain. Suggest an edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I have suggested edits - scroll up to a few of the sections above this one, some of which are now hatted to avoid disruption, but why should those of us who have challenged NPOV in this article always be the ones whose suggestions are ignored? Edits that would eliminate the bulk of the NPOV issues (WEIGHT & BALANCE) and actually update this article are denied by local consensus - which tends to support the OWN concerns - and ironically the same arguments that were used to support inclusion of the dossier allegations are rejected now that the tide has turned. Surprise, surprise. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What IDONTLIKEIT and DIDNTHEARTHAT arguments? As said above, please focus on article improvements instead of indulging in vague criticisms. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think MelanieN is on vacation for a couple of weeks. PackMecEng (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Then we can either (1) call an RfC or (2) take it to DR or (3) simply add the well-sourced information the same way the article "owners" have been adding their WEIGHT-Y versions (and yes, the edit summary supports my position), and if the well-sourced material is reverted, NPOV/N may be the final "peaceful" option before AN/I. The aggressiveness shown in keeping well-sourced information out of this article is very disconcerting. I'm also of the mind that a POV tag needs to be added to this article - the one I added to the spin-off was removed and I have sought the advice of an admin. The double-standard (and noncompliance with NPOV) is quite disconcerting, especially considering the DS that are in place. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is now twice you have cast aspersions. Please be civil and examine your own behavior. O3000 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations of aspersions when there are none. In fact, you are casting aspersions, but I have no intention of arguing with you. Offering options are not aspersions, and I suggest you learn the difference. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? AN/I, article "owners", aggressiveness shown in keeping well-sourced information out of this article is very disconcerting, double-standard (and noncompliance with NPOV) is quite disconcerting, DS, DIDNTHEARTHAT, IDONTLIKEIT, disruptive. Work on the article, not against other editors. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of the creation of the dossier

Timeline: The making of the Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier (Emphasis added)

BullRangifer (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Hmmm.... Steele-Trump-Russia dossier has a nice ring to it, and it would satisfy (almost) everyone. Just sayin'... -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Still crummy, but much better than what we have now - especially since there's a few other proto-dossiers floating around out there. Xerton (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Shearer dossier is around now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The name of this article is POV

Nothing about this so-called "dossier" has been proven to enough of a reasonable standard that it can honestly be characterized as indicative of a nexus between Trump/Russia. There would be more truth in a title of the Hillary Funded Anti-Trump "Dossier" than there is in the current title. Xerton (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This has recently been discussed, and consensus support the current title, per WP:TITLE.- MrX 🖋 22:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... It strikes me as rather odd that the current title follows the common title and is a descriptive title neutrally based on the actual contents, while the suggested title is based on an editor's POV, and the argument is of the "righting great wrongs" variety. Is there something wrong with this picture? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm it seems to me that some editors here may be approaching consensus from a non-collaborative stance and may be having WP:OWN issues here. Xerton (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent Requested move discussion

Has been discussed here: Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_6#Requested_move_10_January_2018, with the current name being the consensus one. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Steele-Trump-Russia dossier has a nice ring to it, and it would satisfy (almost) everyone. Just sayin'... (copied from above)

Because the Shearer-Trump-Russia dossier is getting more attention, maybe we should reconsider titles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggest Steele Trump-Russia dossier & Shearer Trump-Russia dossier; separate the creators from the content. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

section 1.1

I'm unclear why section 1.1 and subsections is where it is. Section six specifically covers Reactions, so why should these two segments be up near the top? Further, the use of Paste as a source is...surprising. It's a music and entertainment website. The piece that contains these segments is a very long screed about Trump. I think this one opinion is being given undue weight. Anastrophe (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me venture an explanation. I have placed the two (so far, since there will be more) under 1.1 because they are specific to the allegations. The Reactions in section six are to the dossier as a whole.

I'm not sure how to reply to the second concern as I don't normally allow the source's POV to affect that decision. The magazine is a RS. A screed FOR Trump in a RS which seriously comments on the allegations could also be eligible for inclusion. This was a list (not a screed) of 31 allegations found in the dossier. Not all are significant enough for mention. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE for the required inclusion of such allegations (there are myriad RS). Since the included comment is clearly the author's opinion, our policies dictate that we treat it as we do anywhere else at Wikipedia, IOW we attribute it. We can also include opposing POV. That's what we do. You're welcome to contribute. -- BullRangifer (talk)

My concern is that a political opinion piece, on a site that labels itself as a music and entertainment site, is being give undue weight, all other things being equal. Countless people have claimed treason and worse; since these are allegations, as yet unsubstantiated, random opinion is worth about a buck fifty. I characterized it as a screed due to nuggets such as " If he repeatedly went bankrupt running casinos in the 1990s, why would we expect Trump steaks to do any better? He sold them at the freaking Sharper Image for Christ's sake." The author of the piece holds the opinion that the matter is treasonous. Set aside that you characterized it as "Jacob Weindling described this deal as [...]". There's leakage here. There is no deal, there is an alleged deal. It's also worth pointing out that that section opens with "The allegation of a 19% privatized stake in Rosneft [...]". That allegation is not detailed in the Allegations section immediately above, nor is it detailed in the sources you provided. The article should have that specific claim detailed before providing reaction to it. I'll be honest, I don't have a dog in this fight. I think that 'reactions to the allegations' belong in the 'reactions' section, even as subsections as you please. I believe 'Paste' magazine's opinion piece is being given undue weight. Far more weighty RS have said similar, albeit perhaps a bit less histrionically. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Anastrophe, you are very welcome to propose those more notable sources which say the same. I'd be happy to add them. I also understand your concern about mentioning it without it being presented in the allegations section. That will, hopefully, be fixed soon. Please participate at the RfC about this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Including weak sources like this one is like feeding starving children thing gruel and saying "what's wrong whit that?". Far too often, I see thin gruel sources used to tip the narrative scale towards the derisive sense in various articles. That this seems to happen the most with the articles of notable conservatives could just be a coincidence, but perhaps not. Our job isn't to reinforce the personal political biases or personal suspicions of the editors; our job is to dispassionately write neutral articles. But this article needs work, if we're going to get there, here.Xerton (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the specific reactions to the overall section about reactions. No opinion on contents or source quality. — JFG ^talk 16:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree with the underlying sentiment, I'm not sure what makes the opinions of Jacob Weindling of Paste particularly worthy of inclusion. Someone with a legal background would certainly be preferable. PvOberstein (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Some problems with recent additions

@Bullrangifer: Thanks for improving the refs, but I wanted to let you know I've found some wording problems and inaccuracies in these recent additions. First of all, the word "clarify" is usually best to avoid because of WP:WTW. Next the wording "After media speculation that the accusations against the Trump–Russia dossier made in the Nunes memo would serve to invalidate the legitimacy of Robert Mueller's Special counsel investigation," should be more specific to what "media" is being referred to. This article attributes it to a blog post from Fox News contributor Sara Carter. Finally, the WaPo fact check doesn't say anything to the effect of "central accusation," and your addition misattributes the words Devin Nunes said in an interview to the Nunes memo. ^Falling_Gravity 19:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific and constructive observations. I'll try to fix it this evening. I may have gotten content from two refs mixed up. It's good you removed it. We want to get this right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, I hope my changes satisfy your concerns. Let me know. I was in a hurry and had to leave, and normally I would have checked my work more carefully. That's how mistakes happen, just like drunk editing can do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Look good. ^Falling_Gravity 07:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Salacious and unverified

It's POV to omit these words from the lede - they are defining characteristics as per James Comey Xerton (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's an old and incomplete statement, but it is covered. In the lead the degree of verification is mentioned, with much more in the body, and the actual quote is discussed in the body. Things have changed a lot since then. The "salacious" part is only one of many allegations, but the tabloid journalism tendencies got the upper hand with most media and it got mentioned a lot, giving it far more weight than deserved. The other allegations are much more sober, serious, and some verified. We don't give undue weight to minor details, even if sensational headlines do. We are more serious here, but we do mention the quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is a merge discussion at Talk:List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations#Proposed Merge. I was informed that I should have also notified editors here, and that makes total sense. Sorry about the delayed notice. Please participate there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion closed as "merge".  Done.

The "lead" in that section will need to be vastly reduced. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about descriptive heading

I added this heading so the two four subsections would make sense. Without it there was uncertainty about why they existed. I wanted to remove any ambiguity:

• Trump–Russia dossier#Actions interpreted as confirming veracity

That was reverted with an argument that did not make sense to me. When I restored it, I accidentally did it without an edit summary, so I quickly reversed and redid it with the edit summary "The heading is merely a description of the content." That's what our headings do.

What do others think? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Gah! I misunderstood the rules above and will self-revert. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss this. If no one bothers to respond, I'll restore that heading AND move four two subsections up to the Veracity section where they belong.

Two of the subsections aren't mere "Reactions", but speak to confirmation of the "Veracity" of those allegations and Steele's sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Since no one has responded or objected, I have restored a version of the heading and moved two of the subsections to a more logical spot. Let's see if that's better. The disruptive editor who reverted me has just returned from a well-deserved block, but seems to be taking a hiatus, at least for now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What in the dossier was verified?

"But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. 2602:306:cd24:b470:e142:c5ae:5aae:d9a2 (talk) 13:37, February 20, 2018‎ (UTC)

At this point, I'm afraid it has become difficult to give much credence to anything leaking out of the majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

....and anything political from Fox News. Consider the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So, Fox News is not a RS for this article, while an obscure music and entertainment site's opinion piece is? Regarding "Paste" magazine, you previously wrote "I'm not sure how to reply to the second concern as I don't normally allow the source's POV to affect that decision." How do you square that with the above? Anastrophe (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to propose an edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Anastrophe, the reliability of a source here depends on how it's used. Factual accuracy and fair commentary are also important, and where Fox often fails. For mundane facts it's okay, but for politics it can't be trusted because it's a GOP propaganda channel and is very selective in what it covers and refuses to cover, and in how it does it when it does. For politics it should be used with caution. When we can find the same subject covered elsewhere, we should try to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"McCabe was asked to point to anything in the dossier that he knew to be true. McCabe noted that the dossier said, accurately, that the unpaid, low-level Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page visited Moscow in July 2016."

References

"these are not precise quotes" enough said, so in at least some cases it was not a case he could not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, but rather could not verify versions of the allegation he was being asked about.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. These quotes from the Examiner are also telling:

"After the questioning established that McCabe would not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, he was asked if he stood by its veracity. McCabe said he did.

"And that was the gist of the questioning on the dossier. McCabe never claimed the FBI had verified the substantive allegations in the dossier, but he also never said the FBI had not been able to verify the dossier's explosive allegations, either." (Emphasis added)

BTW, the Examiner, just like the Washington Times (often confused with the famed Washington Post) isn't a super good source. They are both, just like Fox News, pushing the Putin/Trump party line and often unreliable on these subjects. For mundane facts they are okay, and in this case they still reported part of it right. This would not have been allowed at Fox News.

Keep in mind that the House Committee has a very different mission than the Senate Committee. McCabe was a hostile witness before a committee engaged in a distraction/cover-up campaign to protect Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing investigation, and law enforcement officials are not going to be completely forthright about this. That's the way it's supposed to be. We now know that some things which Steele's sources alleged were things only later shown to be true by the media and intelligence community reports. His sources proved to be accurate. We will learn more with time. Mueller's investigation is keeping their cards close so suspects will not be tipped off. Be patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich recently broke a story that exposes McCabe. Cernovich said it will take the mainstream media a while to verify, so I won't post a link, but if you are curious you can easily find it. Include 302 notes in your search.Phmoreno (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Cernovich is not a RS for anything political. He's like Limbaugh. Better to never expose your mind to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

McCabe testimony

I added the following, and it was removed by User:Slatersteven, with this edit summary: "I think this is misleading, as it implies he could not substantiate it, rather then could not answer the questions they asked (not quite t)"

During testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on December 21, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer certain questions about dossier, but stood by its veracity:

After the questioning established that McCabe would not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, he was asked if he stood by its veracity. McCabe said he did.

And that was the gist of the questioning on the dossier. McCabe never claimed the FBI had verified the substantive allegations in the dossier, but he also never said the FBI had not been able to verify the dossier's explosive allegations, either.

Steven, please explain more. As I see it, "could not" (your words) and "would not" (the quote) are two very different things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Would not implies it was because he did not want to answer, Could not implies he was unable to answer the question they asked. But the source makes it clear at least some of those questions involved alterations to the text he was being asked about. I have no idea why they would do that (I can guess but it would be a guess), but he would be unable to say "yes we verified that" if it was in fact no in the document.".Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Steven, so do you still object to my addition? If so, per PRESERVE, how would you improve it, rather than deleting it? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a POV article from an unreliable source. The very title of the Washington Examiner article - "They got nothing" - betrays that it is POV. The meaning of what McCabe said is clear - that he could not state in public what information they had verified, or based on what intelligence. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, I agree. Normally I don't use the Examiner, but the part I used got it right, and like any good lawyer, when you can get a hostile witness to admit you're right, you use their testimony. It's much more effective than a friendly witness who would be expected to agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In a Google search for ‘’McCabe testimony dossier’’, the only source I found that said McCabe refused to answer questions, or worse yet claimed he said the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier, was Fox News.[2] Even the Washington Examiner reported that “doubts were being cast” on that claim in the memo. [3][4] The Daily Beast flatly contradicts it. [5] --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven and MelanieN, now, do you still object to my addition? If so, per PRESERVE, how would either of you improve it, rather than deleting it? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what your proposed addition is? --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, MelanieN. What's right below. The introductory sentence sets the context, and each sentence in the box has interesting content relevant for the Veracity section. It's a good example of how "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It shows how McCabe, just like all the other FBI and CIA leaders, has been evasive, as they should be during an active investigation. Those who, like Trump, deny Russian interference, try to use that relative silence as proof there is "nothing there". That's a BS argument. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

During testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on December 21, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer certain questions about the dossier, but stood by its veracity:

After the questioning established that McCabe would not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, he was asked if he stood by its veracity. McCabe said he did.

And that was the gist of the questioning on the dossier. McCabe never claimed the FBI had verified the substantive allegations in the dossier, but he also never said the FBI had not been able to verify the dossier's explosive allegations, either.

Yes as we are still saying he could not substantiate the allegations in the dossier, despite the fact it is clear some of the things he was asked to substantiate were not in the dossier.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm not sure I understand you correctly. When I look at the article (and these types of questions we've seen over the last year), the operative words used are "would not", not "could not". I think it's clear from this source, and many others, that McCabe and other FBI and CIA leaders "could" reveal much more than they are willing to say while the investigation is ongoing.

Not only would revealing which allegations have been confirmed tip off suspects, it would also endanger the lives of sources. One man, a general, has already been killed in Russia, and RS have speculated that it was because he was a source. Steele (or Simpson) has stated that he was not a source, so it's apparently dangerous to even be suspected of being a source.

Also, what are those "things he was asked to substantiate were not in the dossier"? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It is also clear (I provided the quote) that in at least some cases it was due to the quotations he was being asked to verify were wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to the words I have bolded here?: "On a number of occasions, when asked about what in the dossier had been corroborated by the FBI, McCabe gave answers such as — these are not precise quotes — I can't answer that, or I don't know how to answer that." I'm not sure how you interpret that, but I think it refers to the words which immediately follow, not to anything else, IOW "I can't answer that, or I don't know how to answer that" were "not exact quotes" of what McCabe said. They were paraphrases. Does that make sense? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

They are what the source claims he said. It gives a context as to why he was unable to answer.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That answer leaves me in the dark. Say more. I'm really trying to figure out what you mean by "the quotations he was being asked to verify were wrong." What specific quotations are you referring to? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dont ask me ask the source that makes the claim that is the situation (these are not precise quotes, I just paraphrased that). Either the source is accurate for what he said or it is not, which is it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I guess we're talking about the same thing. The author (York) is paraphrasing McCabe's replies ("I can't answer that, or I don't know how to answer that") and not referring to anything McCabe was asked about. York has just prefaced that wording by noting that, in York's opinion, "these are not [McCabe's] precise quotes", referring to McCabe's answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

and we have to give those "paraphrases" as a context as to why he was unable to give answers.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See my tweaked comment above. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You still make the clam he was unable to verify the contents of the dossier, rather then not being able to answer their questions about it, it is not the same. You still fail to include the fact (the source) claims he said that in at least some cases it was because what they asked did not match the material in the dossier.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I was puzzled the way you presented your initial proposal; I’m still puzzled. Why do you have an introductory sentence and then two additional sentences in a box? I like the introductory sentence, outside of the box. I don’t like what’s in the box. It’s unencyclopedic and kind of redundant. I still don’t like the Washington Examiner source; it’s an op-ed piece in an less-than-reliable publication; but in an extensive search I couldn’t find any other report saying that he declined to confirm details of the dossier but stood by its veracity. I guess we can use this, since that one fact seems credible and neutrally reported. But I don’t see any basis for expanding on it since sources largely ignored this point. Most of the reporting about his testimony is about whether he did or didn’t say the dossier was essential to the FISA request, and I don’t see any need to include that in this article. If we use the first sentence, it should make clear that the testimony was in closed session so we don’t know what he actually said. So I propose using just this: During closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on December 21, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer detailed questions about the dossier, but stood by its veracity. The alternative would be not to mention this at all, since the sourcing is shaky and reliable sources have not reported on it (see WP:WEIGHT). --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I like that version. It's an important point to include. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Which would be my preferred option, leave it out as pure speculation (and likely a bit unduey).Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Unduey, I like that! Neologish! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahh I see why we argued past each other, it never dawned on me that there was any text outside the box.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, the result of this discussion so far seems to be that one person (User:BullRangifer)) wants to include the proposed edit, one person (User:Slatersteven) wants to leave it out entirely, and one person (me) favors either including the single opening sentence or leaving it out entirely. I am going to come down on the side of leaving it out, because of weak sourcing and WEIGHT (i.e., lack of weight) of coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think MelanieN's green text is good and sufficient. On the other hand I generally favor avoiding play-by-play type news updates, and the facts will become clear in due time. So I wouldn't be upset if we left this out. News updates are often hard to do responsibly on WP. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Washington Times item

"Sources speculated to The Washington Times that it would be embarrassing for Mr. McCabe to condemn a political opposition research paper on which his agents based decisions to open a counterintelligence investigation and interview witnesses."Phmoreno (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That counterfactual story is a good illustration of why the Times isn't normally considered a RS for politics. They are pushing a counterfactual conspiracy theory. At least they were honest enough to state it was speculation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

PH, Please don't bring up the Washington Times again. It's garbage. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I'm having a hard time trying to understand your "counterfactual conspiracy theory" comment.Phmoreno (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it is a "report" based on 1) speculation by 2) anonymous sources to 3) the Moonie Times, a paper that has never had any credibility and never will under its current ownership and editorial policy. And it is 4) counterfactual because it has been thoroughly established, and confirmed by the Nunes memo itself, that the dossier was not the reason for opening the counterintelligence operation; it was opened because of Papadopoulos blabbing to the Australians. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Speculation? Subsequent events led to McCabe leaving the FBI and an investigation of the FBI and DOJ by the Inspector General. Whether or not the Papadopoulos conversation with Alexander Downer started the investigation, what is in question here is the FISA warrant on Carter Page, for which the dossier was used. Again, the IG's report is expected to cover this. Carter Page's trip to Moscow was public information, but his meetings with certain Russians named in the dossier have not been confirmed.Phmoreno (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. The report you are quoting SAYS it is speculation. "Sources speculated to The Washington Times..." --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That was then, this is now.04:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Phmoreno (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is synthesis. We go wit what the sources say, nit analyse them in the light of subsequent events (which I am sure many here can given a different interpretation to then you).Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic and automatically updated OR

This edit and its edit summary brought my attention to something we must avoid.

These refs are only used in the lead, and have been co-opted for conclusions about the future. That's wrong, as they can only be used for when they were said. They also need attribution and use in the body of the article before being used in the lead

This is a case of dynamic and automatically updated OR:

• {{As of|February 2018}}

We can't do that. I have therefore moved it here for improvement:

• As of February 2018, the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated.

There are two sources, and somehow that must be stated in relation to the time the sources were written. We can't use a code like that to make statements - written at one point in time - apply to future events. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Quickly produced approximate timeline of edits:

1. 1 January 2018 Anythingyouwant adds content "and as 2017 drew to a close the dossier’s allegations of collusion were yet to be proved or disproved."
2. 30 January 2018JFG changes the content to "{{As of|December 2017}}, the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated."
3. 13 February 2018 Jdcomix changes "December 2017" to "February 2018"

Only the last edit is really controversial. I'd suggest either (a) going back to Anythingyouwant's version or (b) just simply saying "the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated", without specifying date and switching Vox source to a source that focuses more on the dossier, for example this piece from The New York Times. This is all very uncontroversial stuff. No need for attribution and we can add about one sentence to the body to state the same. Politrukki (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right, Politrukki. I would support a variant of Anythingyouwant's version without any date and with a better source as you suggest. But "were yet to be proved" is an awkward construction and possibly not clear to non-English speakers. How about simply "The dossier’s allegations of collusion have not been publicly proven or disproven." (Or if people prefer, "proved or disproved".) --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, JFG's version "the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated" is simpler and clearer - with no date and possibly with the addition of "publicly" (since we have no idea whether the FBI or the Special Counsel have corroborated anything). --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think "publicly" seems a bit trivial – because sources usually say unsubstantiated/unverified dossier without veering into speculation about how much the intelligence community knows – but I would not seriously contest including "publicly". Politrukki (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree that we must not overstep the date of the source. It was significant in the midst of end-2017 recaps of the affair, and I would support keeping that for now. If a more recent "long-term view" source appears stating the same thing today, then we can switch to that one and list the new date. For now, I'd suggest simply switching to past tense: As of December 2017, the dossier's allegations of collusion had not been corroborated. I also think adding "publicly" is superfluous. However, it's good to keep the {{As of}} template, because it alerts editors to the need for an update with more timely sources some day. — JFG ^talk 21:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should simply say "have not been corroborated" without a date. It's not like we get a new report every month saying "still not corroborated!" Considering the number of us watching this article, I think if any collusion gets corroborated, it will be in the article within the day. And we can change this sentence then. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree no need to state a date, but "publicly" is critical to avoid any possible misunderstanding. It's not speculation. It may be logically superfluous, so Mr. Spock might not need "publicly" but 1/2 our readers might misunderstand "not corroborated" to mean "rejected" or "disproved." SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

About the "Allegations" section

Nice work adding the new “Allegations” section, User:BullRangifer. Some comments about the intro to that section: I had expected we would trim the intro drastically when we put it into this article, but actually, it’s a good readable summary of the allegations and should mostly be kept IMO.

I do think we should delete the “Natasha Bertrand” sentence as adding nothing of value, and instead launch straight into the summary: “The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which are currently unverified and others for which possible verification is classified.[10] The memos allege that Russia has been cultivating a relationship with Trump for decades...” and the rest of that paragraph, then the next, then the paragraph of denials.

Alternatively, we could place the denials next to the allegations, as we already do with the sexual allegations and Schiller’s comments. In other words, something like this: First paragraph, “The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which are currently unverified and others for which possible verification is classified.[10] Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have repeatedly denied the allegations, with Trump labeling the dossier as "discredited", "debunked", "fictitious", and "fake news".[72][73]" Then the paragraph that begins “The memos allege that Russia has been…", which names Manafort, Cohen, and Page, including their denials at the end of the paragraph. Then the paragraph with the sexual allegations and Schiller’s comment. I think I would like this arrangement a little better. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have always felt it was best to keep the denials right after the relevant allegations. That satisfies both NPOV and BLP. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the top paragraph, as I agree that it reads much better that way. I thought we would require a lot more trimming too, but it looks rather nice how it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I moved the denials next to the allegations. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Timeline: The making of the Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier

This is a rich source of information:

• Timeline: The making of the Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier, The Washington Post, February 6, 2018

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Citation quibble

@BullRangifer: In the “Russian embassy spy” section, there is a quote, several sentences long, with four sources attached. Since it is a direct quote, it seems to me it should have only a single source, namely, the source it is quoting - to make the attribution clear Which source is the quote from? --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I'll figure it out. Otherwise your edits are really improvements. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll notice that I split the "Ukraine" section into two sections, "Ukraine" and "Europe". Please check that I didn't mess up any references or anything. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. He was definitely affected by Manafort's lobbying efforts and Page's agreements on his behalf. It affected his changing idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A missing point?

I was checking the Guardian reference and I noticed it quotes the dossier as saying that Putin’s goal in cultivating Trump was “to encourage splits and divisions in the western alliance”. I’m wondering if we should add that somewhere in the Allegations section, since it does appear to have been carried out by Trump’s subsequent actions. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That ref would justify including that wording from the dossier. The subject of "divisive" is mentioned in the section "Kremlin pro-Trump and anti-Clinton". I'll get on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I ended up putting it higher up. Feel free to tweak or move. It's definitely tied to the political goals of the two men, so maybe a new section for such stuff would be in order. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Huff Post also mentions that as one of Putin’s goals. “According to the dossier, Putin’s wish list includes lifting sanctions on Russia, turning a blind eye towards its aggressive efforts in the Ukraine, and creating a divisive rift amongst western allies.” --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Another reason to get this "wish list" into the allegations section: there is evidence that Team Trump was planning to lift the sanctions as soon as they took office[6][7] [8][9]. (They were prevented from doing so by congressional moves to enshrine the sanctions into law and the January release of the intelligence community's assessment about Russian interference). Still, more corroboration of Trump attempts to enact Putin's wish list. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This is very important. The dossier alleges that Page made the Rosneft agreement with Trump's "full authority" and confirmed that lifting the sanctions was one of Trump's intentions. $11 BILLION is a great motivator! It was always about lifting the sanctions, and the two (related) motivators were (1) the money from the Rosneft deal and (2) Manafort lobbying Putin's interests about Ukraine. The sanctions was also the subject of the Trump Tower meeting. "Adoptions" and dirt on Hillary were never the real subjects. I think the Russian lawyer admitted that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no. "Adoption" was and is the Russian cover story for "lift the sanctions". "Adoption" has been the supposed focus of the lobbying by the two Russians, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin - but what they really mean is "lift the sanctions and then we will allow the resumption of adoptions". It was because of sanctions that Putin retaliated by banning American adoptions of Russian orphans. And ever since, they have been saying "let's restore American adoptions" as their quid-pro-quo or introductory line for what they really want: "lift the sanctions". --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Yes and no. I was primarily referring to the story about "dirt on Hillary". That was just a ruse to have a meeting about lifting the sanctions (yes, "adoptions" is indeed code for "lift the sanctions"). They don't care about the kids, but about the money made by lifting the sanctions. "...the attorney wanted to talk about adoptions rather than giving incriminating information on Clinton."

The members of that meeting, a rather important constellation of people who "just happened" to meet there, had no special interest or special knowledge about "adoptions", but they all had lots of interest in lifting sanctions and making money from it. You've probably heard the joke about that meeting: "A lawyer, a spy, a money launderer, and a mob boss walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, "you must be here to talk about adoption"."

LOL! No, I hadn't heard that one. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The dossier's allegations, confirmed by subsequent real-life actions by these people, make it clear that a large part of the Trump-Russia relationship is built on this theme. (Trump is allegedly promised $11 billion if he lifts the sanctions and doesn't defend the sovereignty of Ukraine.) Other information indicates that Saudi Arabia and nuclear power may play an even bigger role, but the dossier says nothing about that angle as it was not the assigned task. The dossier does mention China, and that crimes there are allegedly far worse than what happened in Russia. Time will tell about that. (Yes, the joke is "not a forum" territory, but still on-topic ). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Background and reactions to specific allegations" subsection?

Should we have such a subsection to the "Allegations" section? (Or some other related wording.)

Right now we have such information scattered around in the lead of the "Allegations" section, the "Carter Page testimony" section, and in the "Reactions to specific allegations" section. I think it would be better to collect it in one place, as a subsection in the "Allegations section".

To see how that looks, see here.

The "Events interpreted as confirming veracity" section could also be made a subsection of the "Allegations" section. What do you think? Pinging MelanieN. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree this type of material could use better organizing. Let me think about it. For starters, I am not fond of the "reactions to specific allegations" section, where we cherry-pick one or two comments (we seem to have preferred comments that use the word "treason," although "bribe" seems like a better description). I wouldn't mind deleting that whole section. For that matter, haven't any sources pointed out that there is no evidence that the alleged Rosnoft offer was ever a real thing? The payoff certainly doesn't seem to have happened - but then, Trump hasn't been able to lift the sanctions (not for lack of trying). --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RS have indeed reacted to specific allegations, so we should add more, rather than remove, content to that section.

There were several articles which dealt with the sale of 19.5% of Rosneft, Carter Page going to Moscow when it happened in Dec. 2016, and how the money then traveled through a series of mysterious shell companies, and at least one illegal (in Russia) bank transaction (which could not have happened without Putin's approval). The last destination was a Cayman Islands account. We have no evidence that it has been paid out to Trump. I can dig up those sources and see if it can be worthy content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, regarding "...haven't any sources pointed out that there is no evidence that the alleged Rosnoft offer was ever a real thing?" Sure, there are lots of sources, mostly Trump friendly, which have claimed the whole dossier is fake and made up, just to hurt Trump. Serious sources have seen bits of evidence. Carter Page's own testimony undermines the fringe denialist views. He nearly admits the contents of the meeting, after initially denying (as all the Trump people do) any meeting happened. When testifying under oath, his story changed, and his memory "improved". We cover that in the article. Something did happen, the privatization sale did happen, some very weird and unusual financial transactions then occurred for unknown reasons. This would be expected if the allegation is true. Mueller's investigation will bring more clarity, so we must be patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, what do you think of the idea of consolidating this scattered, but related, material? To see how that looks, see here.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems a little wordy to me, not in terms of the prose, but just squinting and looking at the relative size of the section compared to other sections. There might not be any way to fix that, I'll take a good read of it and see if I can make it a bit more concise. Otherwise the only critique I have is that "Background and reactions" seems a little stiff. Maybe just calling it "Reactions" would be best, as the background info provided there was actually all given out as part of the reactions, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work:

1. The heading is a bit long and awkward. Any improvement is welcome. We have another "Reactions" section, but just dropping "Background and" might be good enough. They are two very different types of reactions, but maybe using a different word for one of them would be even better.
2. By "wordy", are you referring to the (1) number of entries or to the (2) actual size of each entry? The latter can be dealt with using normal editing procedures, so in that regard there is nothing unusual here.
3. This suggestion is more radical: What about just folding the "Events interpreted as confirming veracity" into this? The diff doesn't show it, but content added later shows many sections are on the same topics.
4. We could also limit the depth of the TOC so that third level doesn't show.

Did any of that address your concerns? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You raise a good point about the existence of another reactions section. Perhaps, instead of having two sections, we could merge them and re-write them to ensure that the responses to specific allegations were given, but without a bunch of section headers or pseudo-section headers.

By "wordy" I meant the second definition you gave, and yes, I agree that it's no big deal, just something I noticed. It will end up getting corrected, if not by me, then by someone else.

Regarding your suggestion; I don't know. I keep waffling back and forth and side to side on it. I'll have to give it some more thought before I'm quite sure what I have to say on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have tried a new heading. Instead of "Events interpreted as confirming veracity", I changed it to "Veracity of certain allegations". I also added more subsections (from 4 to 7) and much more documentation. There are multiple events which RS have documented, and some RS make a direct connection between those events and the allegations in the dossier. They make the synthesis, so we can use those sources here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a better title. Whether or not they confirm the veracity is up to the reader (except where it's stated directly by the sources, of course), but the less equivocating title ties it back to the larger subject better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and where it is an opinion, we attribute the source. Obviously there can be disagreement among sources about whether an event confirms the veracity of the dossier's claims, but if RS make that type of connection, they are fair game here.

Regarding headings, I'm sure some headings could be more concise, while still giving the gist of the subject, so there is still work to be done. More eyes welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at shortening some of the longer section titles, see here. They're not as spot-on now, but I think the reader will get the idea from the body of the sections. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: New titles are much clearer, thx! — JFG ^talk 21:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Great job! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Important improvements to the article...

...are being done without me getting involved and that makes me a sad panda.

I'm being facetious, of course. Good job, guys. It's looking better every time I check it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work, your help would be very appreciated. More eyes are usually a good thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I seriously meant what I said above: you guys are doing a great job so far. Except for your question in the section above (which I'll have an answer to in a moment), I'm honestly at a loss as to where to begin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source ?

Will the editors on this page accept this http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-doozy-of-a-dossier/article/2011865 as a valid and reliable source? Xerton (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Good question. Hyperpartisan sources are in a borderland. The Weekly Standard occupies the same position as Reason and National Review on the right-wing/conservative side as Democracy Now!, Jacobin, and The Intercept for the left-wing/liberal side. (Although I'm a left-wing liberal, I don't recall ever using them here.) They all offer complex analysis, rather than straightforward original news reporting, so they offer as good or bad opinions as the author. In this case it's musician Eric Felten, who also writes about political subjects for the Standard.

As with many legitimate questions of this type, it all depends on how the source is used. For documentation of its own POV in its own article, and sometimes other articles, there would be no question. Then questions of due weight come into play.

I'd like to hear other editors' opinions, but it would be much better if you provided us an example of how you'd like to use it. We might even be able to polish it into something usable. I like to work with editors who hold opposing POV. Together we can produce better content than either alone.

Pinging the other editors currently active on this page: User:MPants at work, User:JFG, User:MelanieN,

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(pinged) The source cited makes a relevant analysis of the dossier and the circumstances around its creation. Therefore some of the points not made elsewhere deserve attributed inclusion. For example, the author questions how Steele could get any high-level access to government sources while being persona non grata in Russia for years. I have no opinion on the political leanings or general reliability of the Weekly Standard. I don't mind that much about partisanship of sources, unless they print obvious garbage. For example I found that The Intercept often publishes quality investigative reporting irrespective of its political orientation. — JFG ^talk 02:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the article in question is commenting on this article by Jane Mayer, one can get the original context for the commentary and form a judgment of whether it's fair or unfair commentary. Search the Mayer article for these words "Unlike some of his former M.I.6 colleagues, he has not been declared persona non grata by Putin’s regime,...", then check several of the preceding and following paragraphs to get the full context. If Felten makes that claim, then he's wrong.

Steele and Orbis have several layers of sources, with varying abilities to penetrate security measures and get wind of overheard conversations, etc. Search for these words and their context: “we’re a bit like the bridge on the Starship Enterprise—we’re a small group but we manage an enormous ship.”

Many expat and exiled Russians live in England, and some of them have intimate knowledge of current affairs and insider knowledge. They make for good sources. Since the British, American, and other intelligence agencies trust Steele so much, and his work has been quite noteworthy and accurate, I'd tend to believe them more than a musician/amateur political opinion writer. None of them have question these things. Keep in mind that the dossier is a rough draft, not a polished document.

I also noticed another claim where Felten exaggerates a simple typo into a conspiracy theory. The "26 July 2015" date (it should be 2016) on page 6 of the dossier is clearly a simple typo, but he then spins a story without evidence. It's just a typo. Nothing more. The context is a longer exposition on Russian cyber crime and cyber operatives, which happens to give nice background understanding for the whole DNC hacking affair. The correct year date is in the text on the page: "1. Speaking in June 2016, a number of Russian figures with a detailed knowledge of national cyber crime,..." This is an instance where partisanship tends to affect objective thinking, and why we tend to avoid hyperpartisan sources on both the right- and left-wings. Extremists on both sides do this type of thing. That's why I would likely never use Democracy Now!, Think Progress, Daily Kos, Alternet, etc., even if I tend to agree with their basic POV. They aren't always reliable for the nitty gritty details, and that damages their credibility for facts.

Felten is trying to make a case for the conspiracy theory view pushed by Nunes and company, but he makes the fatal mistake pointed out here (from this article): "Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, has contrasted Steele's methods with those of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney in June 2016: "The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give.""

With all that said, I'm not prepared to outright reject the source. Is there some other point that might be worth trying? Fair criticism is often fair game for inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer said "Many expat and exiled Russians live in England, and some of them have intimate knowledge of current affairs and insider knowledge." While that may be true, it's not very likely that any Russians thus situated have Putin's ear and therefore, it's also very unlikely that anyone in Steele's London orbit has any actual hot skinny on anti-Trump information which Kremlin stooges may or may not want to use against Trump. Does the CIA share it's Putin dirty-laundry with ordinary American expats? Doubtful. This whole "dossier" thing has been stupid from the start and if reading the various links such as this one doesn't make that clear yet, I'm not sure what will. Xerton (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The many steps and links in getting information from very close to people like Putin (How did American intelligence get a copy of the letter handwritten by Trump to Putin?) are many, and involve many paid and unpaid, knowing and unwitting sources.

I know you feel this is all "stupid from the start" but that is because you read extremely unreliable sources (the ones you have in your link library, none of which would be allowed here), and therefore "reading the various links such as this one" confuses you. This will only make sense when you stop reading unreliable sources and immerse yourself in reliable ones. If Trump calls something "fake news", it's a source you should follow and likely trust.

The best way to make heads or tails out of all this, is to simply read the articles here and read the RS themselves. We actually do pretty good work here.

You may want to check out my Reliable sources stash, and start using this diagram to help you focus on using RS (those closer to the middle and the top, especially in the green and yellow boxes). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Felton's bit is more or less garbage on its face, and as such, it's not entirely surprising that this organ would publish it. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Thank you for your well thought out and deeply informative contribution to this discussion. It's always great when my fellow editors invest the time and effort to contrubute high value observations and analysis to the talk pages. Xerton (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thx. Short and sweet can't be beat. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends wholly on what you would like to include. Would you like to propose an edit or could you point your finger at specific parts in the source? Politrukki (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Whether or not the source is reliable depends entirely upon the claim. I could imagine a very few claims of fact I'd be okay with using that source for, I could imagine a larger number of attributed statements I'd accept using that as a source for. I'd need to see the proposed content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Only as opinion of The Weekly Standard - After reading the news story, it appears to be more opinion than a critical study of the dossier. Most notable is their conclusion that the dossier remains "unverified", even though the substantive sections which have been matched to evidence has born out to be verified, thus far, despite some errors of dates and places. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  "unverified" just bolsters this source. That's how reliable sources describe the dossier.

  1. "Since the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on January 10, many reports have surfaced over the ever-evolving Trump-Russia saga. But only a few have confirmed details in the dossier." Newsweek
  2. "The infamous "dossier" alleging collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian government is filled with inflammatory, uncorroborated and in some cases clearly false claims made by unidentified sources" ABC News
  3. "salacious and mostly uncorroborated Steele dossier" Vox
  4. "unverified anti-Trump dossier" Fox News
  5. "a salacious and mostly unsubstantiated intelligence dossier" The New York Times
  6. "Parts of the dossier have been borne out ... but the vast majority remains unverified" The Atlantic
  7. "unsubstantiated dossier" Time
  8. "the infamous – and mostly unverified – dossier" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
  9. "unverified dossier" Huffpost
  10. "the explosive, unverified dossier" Business Insider

  "unverified" is consistent with other sources and all these sources are pretty fresh. Politrukki (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Seems mostly reliable. I'd say it is reliable for basic facts (for which there are probably better sources, though). Any analysis or opinion must be attributed, but I think the requirement of WP:DUE weight is met here, so that the analysis could be mentioned here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Primary source?

Politrukki has tagged a source as a "primary source". The source is NPR's "Fresh Air", where Terry Gross interviews Luke Harding, a subject expert on this subject. Terry Gross "has been in this position since 1975 and has conducted thousands of interviews over her 42 years at the job." NPR is a very RS, and such interviews are normally fair game here.

Is there a real problem here? In what way is this different than any other interview in any other RS?

Since I added that content, I won't remove the tag. Others may do it, and we can also discuss a proper way to resolve this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we should make an exception here and use primary sources? NPR interviews are not subject to editorial oversight. I have no idea whether they are subject to corrections. An interview of Luke Harding is likely a reliable source for claims about Luke Harding, but it is easier to assess due weight if content is supported by a secondary source or more.

Similarly, The Honorable James Comey is an intelligence expert, yet, on this article, we should not cite any transcript of Comey's testimony directly, but through secondary sources. Politrukki (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not a primary source for the content in question. It would be if we were discussing the interview itself. In any case, the tag does nothing to improve the article so I've removed it.- MrX 🖋 19:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't remove cleanup tags until the issue has been resolved. Politrukki (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue was resolved by there not being an issue in the first place. Thus, the erroneous tag was removed.- MrX 🖋 00:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have cited Howard Blum for similar claim. Hopefully we can now remove the redudant Harding blurb. Politrukki (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Harding comment is hardly "redundant". Blum's comment is rather vague and spreads smoke over the issue because it speaks of "over the years", and there is no doubt that some people ("collectors") are paid. Depending on how that vague comment is interpreted, it can be taken as a general statement with little bearing on the very specific issue fo whether the "unpaid sources" were paid (creating a contradiction) or is a subtle attempt to undermine Steele and Orbis.

The Mayer article describes the paid sources as "collectors" (they are not the sources used for content). One can assume that they are people who are a slight distance from their own sources, who are the ones who actually provide the information, IOW those who were not paid for the information in the dossier. "Collectors" are not the sources, but collect the reports from sources, and those sources are too close to the key people, like Putin and Sechin, to be alerted to the fact that they are being used as sources. They are unwitting (and obviously unpaid) sources. They wouldn't deliberately betray a trust, but someone is listening to them and repeating what they are saying.

The Mayer article explains this: "The collectors harvest intelligence from a much larger network of unpaid sources, some of whom don’t even realize they are being treated as informants." Maybe we should include that quote, which includes mentions of collectors. (Done.)

I know that there are right-wing conspiracy theorists who spout all kinds of ideas on unreliable sources to undermine the dossier, Steele, etc, and some of that sneaks into what are normally RS. If editors wish to include such theories here to undermine what the weight of RS say, then we need to discuss what can be used, and whether such content is undue, even if it comes from a RS. Is that Blum statement of that type, or is it just so vague that it should not be used because it confuses the issues? Should it be removed? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In keeping with our normal policies, Harding's opinion is attributed to him. That is normal for such content. Interviews on RS have always been fair game here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is content about paying sources "undue" or not?

Politrukki has tagged this content with this edit summary: "tagging with – this is not a direct claim about the dossier and the source says Orbit pays "collectors")"

Is there a real problem here? The content describes how Orbis (IOW Steele) uses and pays sources, including WHEN they don't pay them, and WHY they don't pay all their sources. Since we already have content directly about them "not paying" the sources used in the dossier, this speaks directly to that point and seems to be on-topic.

Should we also add more, including how they DO pay "collectors", IOW those who are NOT the ultimate sources? Mayer's article does add interesting details about why the ultimate sources often don't realize they are being used as sources. Obviously those closest to Putin, Sechin, and other players mentioned in the dossier would not deliberately provide information to a western source which could endanger themselves or their bosses.

Since I added that content, I won't remove the tag. Others may do it, and we can also discuss a proper way to resolve this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I would lean toward viewing this as undue weight unless a couple of other sources could be found. It seems a big argumentative for an encyclopedia article, and more detailed than necessary. - MrX 🖋 19:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually we don't know whether Steele paid any of their sources. We have conflicting information because Simpson is confused. Michael Morell said "I have subsequently learned that he used intermediaries. And then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them." Perhaps you remember that you removed Morell's comment because you were subsequently speculating that Morell was speculating?

Correct me if I'm wrong but we don't know whether Steele's sources were these so-called collectors. Politrukki (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There have been a few conflicting reports, but they were people who really didn't know. The only ones who knew for sure were people from Orbis, and they say that the sources used were not paid. I believe we attribute that content. If not, we should, and that should settle it. Anyone who says otherwise, without evidence, is speculating, and thus not a RS for that piece of information. (We shouldn't include provably unreliable content, unless it's been the subject of much debate in RS.)

IIRC, Morell was describing what the FBI often did, and speculating that Steele had followed the same practice. The content that is disputed above explains the practices at Orbis, which are not necessarily the same as at other agencies. That may be why they have such a good reputation and track record.

One of the reasons why this information is important to include, is that GOP/right-wing conspiracy theorists have argued, without a shred of evidence, that none of the material from the unnamed sources could be trusted, because they would just lie and produce fake information so they could be paid more. That's a very naive accusation coming from amateurs, because it assumes that professionals have never taken account for that possibility. It would be an amateur's mistake. No one like Steele would survive in the industry if their reports didn't turn out to be true because they used unreliable sources.

If necessary, for context, we could include such conspiracy theory accusations from unreliable sources, but I don't see any reason to go out of our way to include false information, only to shoot it down with the facts. The facts alone, from RS, should be enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You said that Morell is speculating, but Morell said "And I subsequently learned that he paid them."[emphasis added], so Morell did not just suddenly think that Steele must have paid sources, but Morell learned that from somewhere. I don't think Morell is peddling conspiracy theories. We also know that Simpson, in fact, was speculating. The relevant portion of Simpson's testimony seems to be on page 271 and 272. Politrukki (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

John Cassidy....is unreliable. He writes: "In any case, when Steele sent in his first memorandum, which was thirty-five pages long and dated June 20, 2016." Wow! Has he even read the dossier? There were 17 memoranda, each 1-3 pages long, and the dossier totaled 35 pages by December 2016. I'm not sure what Cassidy was thinking there, and what happened to the renowned fact checkers at The New Yorker? They are usually good. This one slipped through. Fortunately that content was not added here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this entire paragraph. Is whether Steele paid his sources important or controversial somehow? Most of the sources cited only seem to mention it in passing, so it's a bit awkward for us to string those bits together into a full paragraph as though this is some sort of breathlessly important aspect of the controversy. If we have a source saying "it's important whether or not he paid his sources, because that would mean XYZ!", we can cite that, but without that I'd be in favor of completely excising everything after the second sentence, and perhaps merging what's left into another paragraph. This is already a long, rambling section, and (unless someone can find a source showing how it actually matters) this part seems like a complete digression. We don't need to cover every sentence in every source, just the broad overview of what's important - is this important? If so, why (and what source can we use to illustrate that?) --Aquillion (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

See the end of my comment above: "If necessary, for context, we could include such conspiracy theory accusations from unreliable sources, but I don't see any reason to go out of our way to include false information, only to shoot it down with the facts. The facts alone, from RS, should be enough." It addresses the fact that false accusations, of Steele paying his sources, have been made by fringe sources, the type we don't normally mention. They throw all sorts of dirt, without evidence, in attempts to undermine the dossier and Steele. It's all part of the cover-up/distract operation going on. I don't see any purpose in litigating false accusations here. Just documenting the facts should be enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd say we'd be better off killing the entire paragraph. The whole thing about whether he framed his sources seems trivial and are asides even in their sources, which don't even really seem to be framing them as criticisms, just random bits of trivia. Putting it together into an allegation and response risks WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, since none of the sources seem to treat it as particularly important or worth discussing - so why cover it at all? The section is bloated, and this is trivia. Kill the paragraph, aside from the first two sentences. (Orbis was hired between June and November 2016, and Steele produced 16 memos during that time, with a 17th memo added in December. In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis by Fusion GPS and used by them to produce the dossier.) Merge that into some other paragraph. Everything after that is umimportant trivia, at least unless someone can come up with a source that actually seems to care about it rather than mentioning it in passing. I get what you're saying about people "throwing all kinds of dirt", but it feels more like editors here are doing that in this case - the sources we're citing don't even present this as 'dirt', just as a random bit of trivia. In other words, John Cassidy isn't even presenting it as something important, just as one note in a long list of events. In fact... hrm. I'm going to remove it, then write a longer bit about my problems with it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

At least two intelligence experts think it is vital information. Please review this archived discussion. In the removed content Morell explains why it is important whether the sources were paid. BullRangifer removed the content because it contradicted with what Simpson said in the opinion piece or in the testimony, according to sources familiar with the matter, according to CNN.

The Honorable James Comey refused to, at least in public, comment Grassley's question about Steele's sources, but answered generally that it is "vital to know" whether the sources were paid. Politrukki (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, you make some important points, so I have created a new section below to reboot the discussion in a manner which will hopefully result in a rewritten section on the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've killed the paragraph. While it seems undue to me, my biggest objection (and the reason I leaped to removing it immediately) was because it seems to me that the "meat" of the section under dispute is this contradiction: Simpson has stated that Steele did not pay any of his sources. According to John Cassidy, Simpson acknowledged in his Congressional testimony that he never asked whether Steele paid his sources.. In context (as an editor unambiguously admits above), this framing is intended to make Simpson look unreliable by contrasting the statements from two different sources; however, this connection is not made in any of the sources. Cassidy, in other words, never implies that Simpson said otherwise; and the difference between the two sources may simply be a matter of differing interpretations or perspectives on what was said, rather than a contraiction by Simpson. Either way, without a source unambiguously raising that point, it's WP:SYNTH to try and force those two separate and unrelated sources together in a way that attempts to encourage the reader to believe that Simpson contradicted himself; and with that part removed, the rest of the paragraph (which is mostly further WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to argue this insignificant point) becomes irrelevant as well. If we want to discuss this at all, we need at least one WP:RS that steps back and describes the whole thing as a meaningful controversy, rather than just two different cites that an editor personally decided to juxtapose. --Aquillion (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow! That's a pretty serious violation of WP:PRESERVE (a policy), without any form of consensus. We have really tried to AGF here and edit collaboratively. This violates all that and poisons the atmosphere.

Removing the Cassidy part is a good idea, but the rest of the content is not OR or SYNTH. You are the first one to even mention those objections. All the content is from RS which discuss this in the context of the dossier and Steele's work on it. Please restore and let's discuss your "I don't like it" ideas. Getting specific would help. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That also killed almost all our coverage about sources, a pretty important subject. Not good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've partially self-reverted, but... what's the context that makes the rest of the paragraph meaningful? As I said, it looks, to me, like an overgrown back-and-forth over payments that isn't really treated as important in any of the sources. If we want to discuss Steele's sources, maybe the parts on that could be salvaged elsewhere in the article (eg. perhaps a section about Steele?) - but do they really belong in the history section? What aspect of the history do you feel that the paragraph conveys to the reader, which they need to understand, and which is worth devoting so much text to? It reads like a bunch of disconnected quotes and factoids strung together by editors hashing out a dispute over payments, not like an actually important part of the history. Seriously, try stepping back and reading this entire section from the beginning as if you're an uninvolved editor only vaguely-familiar with the topic. It's a bloated mess of back-and-forth bits like this, many of which do need fairly drastic cleanup. Randomly going into an entire paragraph on Steele's sources midway through the history section is bad for readability; this section should be condensed into a timeline of events, with less timeline-significant assessments like that getting spun off elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

See below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources, their payment, and more...

Thank you for that move. This can be resolved through discussion. Here's the restored content, minus the Blum comment at the end, which is also out of place:

Orbis was hired between June and November 2016, and Steele produced 16 memos during that time, with a 17th memo added in December. In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis by Fusion GPS and used by them to produce the dossier. Simpson has stated that Steele did not pay any of his sources. According to Jane Mayer, Orbis has a large number of paid "collectors" who "harvest intelligence from a much larger network of unpaid sources, some of whom don't even realize they are being treated as informants.... but money doesn't change hands, because it could risk violating laws against, say, bribing government officials or insider trading. Paying sources might also encourage them to embellish." According to Luke Harding, Steele's sources were not new: "They're not people that he kind of discovered yesterday. They are trusted contacts who essentially had proven themselves in other areas."

Now let's work on this. I'll comment more, but will save now before an edit conflict occurs. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this covers:

1. The time period, number of memos, and contract situation
2. The non-payment of sources
3. The Orbis method for using sources and informants
4. The trustworthiness of Steele's sources

This all seems pretty relevant to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The actual order and format might be improved. Any suggestions? That's how PRESERVE works.

I don't see any evidence of undue weight, SYNTH, or OR. The CNN source is about sourcing and payment, and the reason is that certain congressmen think it's pretty important, enough to create a fuss in their attempts to discredit the dossier. That makes it important enough for us to cover. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, regarding the current placement of this content in the History section..., well, your concern sounds quite legitimate. It just happens to have been there for some time, and gotten developed there, but, now that it's outgrown that section, it could just as well be moved down to its own (sub)section, something about "Sources of (or "for") allegations". Is that heading descriptive enough? Other suggestions are certainly welcome. (That first sentence is certainly historical, so it could stay in the history section, right where you placed it.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have experimented with the content in its own subsection here. Is that better, or would it make more sense below the Authorship section? It seems to have more relation to that subject than to history. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aquillion, Politrukki, and MrX here. Paragraph seems undue. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Reboot: Steele/Orbis and payment of sources

When Comey was asked by Grassley if it was important to know if sources were paid, he replied: "I think it is vital to know." That statement should be enough for us to see that this subject has weight enough to deserve coverage in this article.

There seem to be conflicting reports in RS about whether or not Steele's sources were paid, so this needs to be sorted out in order to create satisfactory content. This version, as of 15:59, March 12, 2018, which uses five sources, doesn't use all available sources:

Sources for allegations

Simpson has stated that Steele did not pay any of his sources. According to Jane Mayer, Orbis has a large number of paid "collectors" who "harvest intelligence from a much larger network of unpaid sources, some of whom don't even realize they are being treated as informants.... but money doesn't change hands, because it could risk violating laws against, say, bribing government officials or insider trading. Paying sources might also encourage them to embellish." According to Luke Harding, Steele's sources were not new: "They're not people that he kind of discovered yesterday. They are trusted contacts who essentially had proven themselves in other areas." Howard Blum said that Steele leaned on sources "whose loyalty and information he had bought and paid for over the years".

References

In this comment, Politrukki makes some good points. It isn't only pro-Trump and fringe sources which say things which muddy an otherwise generally clear picture (non-payment) from Orbis (Steele and Burrows) and Fusion GPS (Simpson).

Morell and Blum say things seemingly at odds with their statements. Are we interpreting them correctly? Note that Morell and Blum are very early sources. More information later might lead to clearer insights by others. That's my theory.

Politrukki mentions a deletion of mine and the discussion that followed. Below is what I removed, and that deletion seems to have been accepted, but it might be good to reconsider it now. Maybe we should use it after all, but we just need to figure out how to do it:

but former acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell noted that Steele did not directly interact with his sources, but rather "used intermediaries", speculating that the "intermediaries paid the sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former FSB officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call you up and say, 'hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because they want to get paid some more." While another CIA officer commented that "the CIA also pays its sources," Morell responded: "But we know who the source is and we know how they got the information."

To analyze this, we need to look at the sources/statements in chronological order:

"Dilanian_3/16/2017" (See quotebox above.)

"Blum_3/30/2017"

"CNN_transcript_5/3/2017"

"Raju_Herb_Polantz_11/16/2017"

"NPR.org_11/21/2017"

"Simpson_Fritsch_1/2/2018"

"Mayer_3/12/2018"

References

If there are any other relevant sources, please place them in the proper place chronologically. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Now how can we use these sources in a better way than currently, because I'm assuming that improvement is always possible, especially since we have a nice mix of editors here. That usually results in better content. Let's see some copy editing skills create brilliant prose out of this! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Where do we say that Orbis has denied paying the sources? I don't know what Orbis has said but I don't think Blum is at odds with Fusion GPS. Blum just says that Steele has paid the sources before. As I said, I added the Blum blurb because it says the same thing as Harding: (a) the sources were not new and (b) they were trusted.

I would

1. Remove Mayer part – it describes a policy at Orbis but says nothing about whether Orbis followed the policy in this instance.
2. Remove Harding interview – primary source and extraneous because of similar Blum comment.
3. Restore Morell comment without speculating "speculating" – you seem to be the only one who has opposed including Morell. I don't remember what my thoughts were when I saw the January discussion but I most definitely did not know (thanks to CNN, I guess!) that Simpson has given contradictory statements.
4. Omit the excerpt from Comey interview – primary source. I provided the source only as a background.

Thoughts? Politrukki (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind creating a paragraph based on your suggestions? It would be a lot easier to evaluate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that the "Mayer part" is written in the context of Steele's (Orbis) practices and the creation and history of the dossier, so it's very relevant and precisely on-topic.

The Harding interview is considered an acceptable type of primary source here.

Using the Comey testimony is like directly accessing a court document, and that type of primary source is normally not allowed. It's still interesting.

To what degree do we allow early, relatively uninformed sources, trump later, more informed sources? Several things Morell says have since proven to be untrue. Lots of things in the dossier have proven true, so he was speaking from ignorance at the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dossier-Daniels lawsuits intersect

Hmmm... Interesting development. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mark Penn

I have removed a newly added paragraph on Mark Penn's views, cited to an op-ed column by Penn himself. I do not think Penn's opinions are sufficiently noteworthy to include at all, let along in an entire paragraph. The "Reactions" section is already quite long, and it includes only the reactions of (1) elected officials; (2) people with some connection to the case (Steele's former colleagues, Fusion GPS people); (3) Russian authorities; (4) very prominent journalists (Mayer, Woodward, Bernstein); and (5) former U.S. intelligence officials. We don't include random pundits and pollsters and we shouldn't start to do so, as that would lead to a bloated section. Neutrality^talk 04:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If you read through the "Reactions" section it is overwhelmingly biased in one direction (i.e. in the direction that the dossier is legitimate). For this reason alone, as well as WP:WEIGHT, the Mark Penn info should be added into the article. Also you mention "very prominent" journalists, then falsely label Penn a "random pollster". Penn is not a random pollster - he is a prominent political advisor and pollster who has worked for both of the Clintons for many years and even advised Hillary in her 2008 campaign for president. This more than justifies including his reaction in the "Reactions" section. Please re-insert it ASAP; the paragraph should not have been removed in the first place. PZP-003 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I Agree. Penn is a hired gun. A bigtime corporate Public Relations operative with no reputation for expertise other than POV-pushing and media manipulation -- both skills he's honed to a very high level of competence, but neither of which serves our readers with expert evaluation. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality on this. Penn's opinion is not particularly noteworthy. - MrX 🖋 16:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course you do....

Notice how the two users above just attack the messenger and conveniently dismiss any of the reasoning for including Penn's statement in the article. You can smear him again the same way you smear any reputable person that you disagree with as a "hired gun" and a "PR operative with no reputation" but the thing is he worked for Hillary Clinton on her 2008 presidential campaign. Even if the things you say about Penn are true, the fact remains he worked for many years in politics and also worked for a long time with both of the Clintons. Oh and I forgot to mention he also worked at Microsoft as a senior executive so I'm sure he must be very fringe conspiracy nut type of guy. PZP-003 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the reason he's no good. He does have a sterling reputation -- as an advocate not an expert. PR is great for politicians not so much for encyclopedias. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You are hilarious...you always have a conveniently tricky rebuttal for any user who adds RS/NPOV information that you disagree with into an article. FFS more than half of the people quoted in this article could be considered "advocates"...but of course you won't complain about them. PZP-003 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Reactions

In the "Reactions" section there are 13 paragraphs and approximately 15 people and organizations are quoted. Of those only two (Woodward and Peskov) express negative opinions or skepticism about the dossier. How is this considered balanced especially on a controversial Wikipedia article?

What's even worse is that when I added a third reliably sourced opinion from a prominent person, who worked for Hillary Clinton and expressed a negative opinion about the dossier, it was immediately removed. What is going on here at Wikipedia?

PZP-003 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert needed. Two separate investigations are explained.

In restoring the original content, I inadvertently violated the 1RR DS rule, so I have self-reverted and now started this discussion.

Either Blindman25 can self-revert, or we need a consensus to revert their two deletions of necessary content. [10][11] Blindman25 didn't seem to have read more than a few words before deleting content. The content explains about the previous investigation.

My edit summary: "Read the lede and the history section. There was preceding opposition research, and it is frequently discussed/confused in connection with the dossier, hence we must cover it."

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Blindman25, please self-revert so we can move forward. Also read the section below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Blindman25. See also below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Splitting prehistory into own section

The immediately preceding section describes a situation where lack of understanding about the two phases of opposition research has caused confusion. Since this isn't the first time it's happened, part of the fault may also be in our wording, so I'm considering splitting the GOP research into its own section. It is the prehistory to the dossier. This type of confusion should not happen. Feel free to make suggestions, offer constructive criticism, and propose improvements.

Each section mostly uses the exact same wordings, information, format, and sources as currently in the history section, with minor tweaks to their introductions for flow. For example, wikilinks have been moved to their first mentions, which are now in the new introductory sentence(s).

== History ==

There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS. The first phase was sponsored by Republican sympathizers, and the second phase sponsored by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier.

=== Research sponsored by Republicans ===

The first phase of research was sponsored by Republicans. In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier."

=== Research sponsored by Democrats produces dossier ===

The second phase of research was sponsored by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign and produced the Steele dossier. In April 2016, Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice, hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias was the attorney of record for the DNC and Clinton campaign. ... (Rest is totally unchanged.)

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

I know that this may seem like painting by numbers, but it should prevent re occurrences of the misunderstandings we've seen. The headings make the two phases very clear. Minor tweaks may need to be made to the lead.

Blindman25 and MelanieN, what do you think? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree There's widespread public confusion about this matter, and it's being used by conspiracy theorists to conspiricize. THEREFORE, I endorse this proposed edit. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wholeheartedly support - This subject needs to be carefully delineated for our readers.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - As written at least, I think there is value in a history section just not this exact wording. A few points, there is a false equivalency on the funding. By stating it was funded by republicans in general it gives the impression that the RNC was involved unlike with the democrats were the DNC was actually involved. A person that donates to republicans is not the same as republican officials, at least in this situation. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• PackMecEng, you make a good point, so I have tweaked it. I was trying to keep the intro very basic and leave the details for each section. I'd still like to do that, but am not sure how. Is there a better way to keep it simpler, without creating that false equivalence? Take a look and share your opinion. Pinging SPECIFICO and MrX. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the revision is fine and should address PackMecEng's concerns.- MrX 🖋 16:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this idea makes sense, although you go to probably excessive lengths to spell out, and spell out again, the distinction between the two. Surely you could eliminate the redundancy and say things just once? (For starters, your introductory paragraph could just say "The first phase was sponsored by Republicans and the second by Democrats.") Also, there are some problems with your wording about who sponsored the research. "Republican sympathizers" is completely uninformative and vague; sympathizers with who? Better wording might be something like "sponsored by a wealthy Republican donor who ordered opposition research on Trump because he favored another candidate during the Republican primary." ("and other candidates"? Is that for real? Up to now I have only heard that it was research about Trump.) And that wording would explain why he stopped funding it when the primary was effectively settled. Also, the second phase was not sponsored directly by "the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign," even though you say it twice. It was ordered and paid for by an attorney who was the counsel to both those organizations. Still a connection, but not the direct connection you are making, and accuracy matters in this kind of statement. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I have simplified the first lead by not even mentioning the identities of the two different sponsors.

The source does mention that the opposition research was on Trump and several other Republican candidates. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I see that my continued tweaking after getting suggestions has created some confusion. I suggest you look at the original version and then you'll see the suggestions and the changes they inspired. It's only a few edits.

You'll see that at least one of your suggestions was in the original. I wanted to keep the initial introduction super short. By adding more detail, I end up duplicating some content further down. I'd like to get back to a shorter version that isn't complete duplication.

Your point about accuracy and the role of Marc Elias is important. I'll take a look at doing something about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Well no, that is not actually correct. Yes the lawyer for the DNC and Clinton campain paid the money. But what the sources are saying that it was at the DNC/Clinton direction on their behalf. NY Times"Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie" and Washington Post "The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier". They mention the law firm, but only as an extension of those two. PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, taking MelanieN's suggestions into account. The distinction is important. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reboot

Original version (not exactly the same as above)

== History ==

There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS. The first phase was sponsored by Republicans, and the second phase sponsored by Democrats. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier.

=== Research sponsored by Republicans ===

The first phase of research was sponsored by Republicans. In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier."

=== Research sponsored by Democrats produces dossier ===

The second phase of research was sponsored by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign and produced the Steele dossier. In April 2016, Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice, hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias was the attorney of record for the DNC and Clinton campaign. ... (Rest is totally unchanged.)

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Okay, here's another try, with the hope it fixes some of the lacks mentioned above.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

== History ==

There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS, but with completely separate funders. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier.

=== Research funded by conservative website ===

In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier."

=== Research funded by Democrats produces dossier ===

The second phase of research was funded through Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice. In April 2016, Elias hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias, as the attorney of record for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign, was acting on their behalf. ... (Rest is totally unchanged.)

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Discussion

Pinging: Blindman25, MelanieN, SPECIFICO, MrX, PackMecEng, K.e.coffman. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging: Blindman25, MelanieN, SPECIFICO, PackMecEng, K.e.coffman. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• It looks fine to me.- MrX 🖋 14:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Looks good here as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think the section titles should just be "Research funded by The Washington Free Beacon", and "Dossier research funded by Marc Elias" or "Research funded by Republican lawyer Marc Elias". There's really no need to mask these entities as "conservative website" or "Republicans" in the section titles. ^Falling_Gravity 06:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• ?? This does the opposite of masking the funders. It shows the contrast between them. Both sides were doing the same thing--opposition research on Trump, and the difference--their affiliations--is a defining and significant enough detail that it deserves to be in the headings, IMO. BTW, it's Democrat lawyer Marc Elias. No doubt a typo. Let's see what others think. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• In the interests of moving forward, I'm going to install this version unless someone raises more objections or has more suggestions for improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• MelanieN, I'm wondering if it would be problematic, as far as the DS restriction goes, to go ahead and revert the changes by Blindman25: [12][13]

He's been pinged repeatedly, but doesn't seem to care much for the proceedings here. Since his changes were based on misunderstandings, rather than truly a protest or challenge, I don't think the DS terms really apply in this case, but I don't want to get in trouble. What's the right thing to do? Having progress blocked by a technicality that may not apply is a problem that may best be solved by IAR. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done here. It can easily be reverted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Now the lead has been tweaked to harmonize better with the new content. Hopefully this will prevent any confusion in the future. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I've been kind of out of touch. This version looks fine. BR, I really appreciate your efforts to get consensus on a wording and the way you work with people's suggestions before putting anything in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the way I prefer to work. "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." (From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR.) We need each other. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

GA candidate

I think this article is getting better all the time. Considering the notability and significance of the topic, it deserves to be a Featured Article, but I'm inexperienced in producing them. The dossier is "one of the most explosive documents in modern political history..." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion. First we would have to get it certified as a WP:Good article, and that would take some work. It's currently rated as C-class, which is obviously too low. Here are the criteria for a Good Article. The main one we would have to look out for is stability, which primarily means an absence of edit warring. If you are interested in nominating it for Good Article, I would be willing to help get it there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, the idea was just an impulse, but do you think there is a realistic possibility for a GA? An evaluation would give us some important and constructive criticism. Should we give it a try? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The times in the past I have worked toward a GA (and I haven't done it very often) I found it resulted in a much improved article. Especially when more than one person was working on it. Some GA reviewers are very detailed and specific in their suggestions. Some others (especially when there is some kind of GA contest going on) say "check, check, check, good to go." I would rather have one of the reviewers that really get into how to fix the article, which can mean a lot of work for the rest of us but can be a source of pride when we are done. Yeah, if you want to nominate it, go ahead. If it doesn't quickfail for some reason, we'll have a real project to improve the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I'd rather get good criticism which improves the article, than just slide by. The better the article is, the more stable it will be. I love to see my content so stable that after 15 years (I've been here since 2003) it's still there, right in some of our most important policies. I must have gotten something right! I'll go ahead and nominate it for GA status. Even if it never makes it to FA, this will be an improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, may I add you as a co-nominator? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure they even do that - this isn't exactly RfA - but sure, if you want. I suspect we may rope in a few more of the regulars here too. It took four of us to bring San Diego to GA status. At that time it was the largest U.S. city to become a GA. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thinking this is GA material is living in an alternate reality.Phmoreno (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you willing to help? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Possibly.Phmoreno (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Good! We can all work together. We each come with different backgrounds and viewpoints, and thus we can help each other see things from angles we otherwise might not see. This is good. Right now, working with what we already have, there is plenty of room for good copy editing in the form of better phrasing, flow, etc. MelanieD has just done some very nice work. If we find some new RS that can be used, let's bring that to the table. Even in the sources we already use, there may be jewels worth using. Although the dossier is finished, the investigation is ongoing and will no doubt bring forth new revelations. Those that are related to the dossier will also need to be documented. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that you and User:Mandruss have been doing a lot of cleanup on the citations. Great! That is exactly the kind of collaborative work that is needed to improve the article - and if Good Article status is the goal it gives us a reason to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Shearer dossier section?

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

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

Some sources:

• Second Trump-Russia dossier being assessed by FBI

• There's a second Trump-Russia dossier

• Nunes Now Planning to Shower America With Memos

• GOP puts Sidney Blumenthal in spotlight

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

• GOP Focuses on Russia Allegations That Reached Steele

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

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

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

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

References

I think there is enough here for a separate section. Reviewing the references: The January 30 Guardian report [14] was the original source and seems to be the basis for other stories; Vox, Mother Jones, and Esquire do not add any new information or independent confirmation, and the Esquire piece is highly opinionated. Additional info from CNN: Republican claims about how the dossier got to Steele. Additional info from WaPo op-ed by Jonathan Winer: confirming that he got the Shearer notes from Blumenthal and passed them to Steele (this is a primary source but valuable IMO). Business Insider confirms Shearer was searching Eastern Europe for dirt on Trump - in other words that his information is independently sourced from Steele’s. The ABC report says the Shearer info is mainly about the sexual allegations and that videos exist in several places. (Israel? How in the world would info like that get from Russia to Israel? That makes me inclined to doubt the whole thing but I guess the FBI is at least looking at it.) Someplace (forget where) said it is raw notes, six pages long, more of a memo than a dossier but that’s what people are calling it. I’d be inclined to skip the ABC, Vox, Mother Jones, and Esquire references and use the others. A section of one to two paragraphs seems to be in order. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Not directly on this subject, but the author was allegedly included in a hit list by the FSB [15]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and POV problems

Serious question: why is this article sourced so heavily to strong-left-leaning British news coverage (Guardian, Independent) and extreme-left opinion blog posts (e.g. Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Slate, Vox) making dire claims about Trump, or declaring that dire claims made by others are probably true—with no reference whatsoever to conservative news or opinion sources or any other materials defending Trump? According to the article, it would seem Putin and Trump himself are the only ones disputing the claims of collusion. Is a neutral encyclopedic tone really served by including 20 separate references to a British journalist who wrote a book called "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win", while palpably ignoring everything casting doubt on the claims of collusion?

Meanwhile the unpublishable Buzzfeed accusations are laid out in excruciating detail, heavy with citations to some random music writer for a music magazine who happens to have a college degree in poli-sci. What crap is this? Do we really need analysis of classified materials and their implications from a Business Insider marijuana correspondent who recently graduated college with a degree in oceanography? In the lead, no less? What is encyclopedic about a citation to a blog post filed under the hashtag "#Watersportsgate"? What does an angry GQ opinion blogger with a background in music reporting, who graduated college less than 3 years ago and posts internet classified ads offering freelance writing services at an hourly rate, add to our understanding of these claims of espionage and high treason?

Real journalists from real newspapers, e.g. New York Times/Washington Post are already well and fully on the stick; why are we scraping the bottom of the twentysomething blogger barrel? And again—why not a single op-ed or other reaction defending Trump? Why zero citations to opinions held or published by, e.g., WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard, Washington Examiner, or Federalist?

Other problems with tone and presentation abound. To cite just one example, we've got former WaPo and current CNN opinion columnist Frida Ghitis observing that, if collusion had occurred, it would have provided blackmail material on Trump. Besides being incredibly obvious, this merits, at most, 10 words attributed to Ghitis. Instead it's transformed into its own section, a nearly 75-word quote given its own heading, and incorrectly described as an editorial statement by Foreign Policy magazine itself when in fact it is an op-ed attributable to Ghitis, which appeared in the magazine's op-ed section. Such puffery is rampant throughout the article, especially with punchy, low-quality opinion blog posts being treated as fact sources. What gives? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)