Talk:Christopher Steele/Archive 1

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

That policy is certainly relevant, but it isn't clear what the result should be.

He is clearly topical because of the dossier alleging Trump's involvement with Russia. I think the second condition might apply, which would suggest merging the two articles.

On the other hand, was his involvement in FIFA investigations (or even having his name leaked and suppressed earlier) sufficient to make make him prominent for more than a single event? I tend to think of these as things that might be forgotten without the Trump and Russia dossier, but they are a little too far afield to put directly in the Trump/Russia article. (And as an American, I may well underestimate how notable those events were on their own.)

JimJJewett (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
All I have to say is "Hell Yes!!!" The only claim to notability is the involvement in the 2016 United States election interference by Russia. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  16:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Duplicate discussion - wrong location See Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia Widefox ; talk 23:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would also agree with trying to keep Steele's name/personal details out of the content if we could, but frankly he is now a public figure, for better or worse. Yvarta (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


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


 * Keep. The article now covers much more than the initial incident and is justified to exist as an independent article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * new merge request I think we should close the current merge request but open a new one to merge this article with Donald Trump Russia dossier. Please have a look, most of the content seems duplicated to me. And I would suggest a new title such as Trump opposition research dossier 2016 J mareeswaran (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This article can contain much more than is relevant there. There will be some duplication, but that which is most relevant at the other article should only be summarized here, and with a "main" link to that article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


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

*Merge I would really rather delete this article and not have a redirect, because of the nature of his work and possible danger to him in being a public figure. Unfortunately that train has left the station; he is publicly identified now, and even though it is a matter if WP:ONEEEVENT we can't undo the publicity he has gotten. But he should NOT have a separate article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC) I am going to copy this comment over to the other talk page, Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia. I am striking it here so that I do not appear to be !voting twice. --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Investigations for FIFA, Litvinenko, might have been Russia desk chief for MI6. Lex Therumsdottir (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename. I do not think he is a person notable for only one event based on info in references. However, if he is a person notable for one event, then the proper action would be to rename this page to the name of the event/subject, i.e. Donald Trump dossier. But I would rather "keep". He definitely looks as a notable person who revealed corruption in FIFA (see here) and was a key person in investigation of Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * different merge you have made out the perfect argument for merging this article with Donald Trump Russia dossier J mareeswaran (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Wrong place, discussion there
Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia Widefox ; talk 23:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


 * IP user, please read the article, with sources as well as the The Diplomatic Service List 1996 p. 235 and 1999 p. 297 (all cited in the article). According to MULTIPLE sources, including The Telegraph and The Diplomatic Service List, Steele graduated from Cambridge in 1986. He was recruited by MI6 and began work at FCO in London from 1987 to 1990. From 1990 to 1992, he was posted to Moscow. From 1993 to 1998, he was back in London at FCO. From 1998 to 2001, he was posted to Paris. From 2002 to 2009, he was back in London (with a brief time in Afghanistan in 2002, maybe 2003). This is a total of two years in Moscow. It is not 20 years in Moscow. NPOV sources describe Steele as head of the MI6 Russia desk, so I have included it in the article, though not in the lead, per Volunteer Marek's helpful suggestion.  Please do not be so strident. I assure you that I am using my common sense!--FeralOink (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Editor from Bonn/IP User, based on this article, it seems that Steele was head of the MI6 Russia desk in London from 1993 to 1997, which is not 20 years.--FeralOink (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does that source (though the Sun is not really a suitable source to quote from) say that? "Russia desk " is not mentioned anywhere. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tiptoethrutheminefield, I thought you were questioning the timing rather than who was head of the "Russia desk". Bonn IP editor was claiming that Steele was head of the Russia desk for 20 years. I do not believe Steele was head of the Russia desk for 20 years. Based on this excerpt from The Sun, it may have been someone else who was head of the Russia desk, but Bonn IP editor keeps saying to "use my common sense" and badgering me here and on my talk page, claiming that Steele was head of head of the Russia desk. (The Sun refers to "Russia section" not "Russia desk".) Excerpting, "The Sun can reveal details about Christopher Steele’s life as spy working in Moscow in the early 1990s....The happy couple were married in July 1990, the same year Steele was stationed in the Russian capital to provide covert surveillance of the crumbling Soviet government... the MI6 agent was ordered to monitor Yeltsin’s famous 1991 speech... Steele worked at Britain’s embassy in Moscow alongside Sir Tim Barrow, who is now the ambassador to the EU... Steele and Barrow both worked under veteran UK diplomat Sir Rodric Braithwaite while in the Russian capital, according to the Mail...According to the report, the pair also worked together in the Foreign Office in London in the mid-90s - where Barrow was the head of the ‘Russia Section’...After working at the Foreign Office in London, the Steele family moved to Paris where he worked at the British embassy from 1998 until 2002." The Guardian says that "Steele focused on Soviet affairs after joining the agency, and spent two years living in Moscow in the early 1990s." So, we know that Steele was stationed in Moscow in 1990, was there in 1991 and 1992, and was posted for two years and some months (at the very beginning of his career with MI6) in Moscow. He returned to London in 1993. I consider 1993 to 1997 to be the mid-90s. The Sun says that it was Barrow who was head of the 'Russia Section' not Steele in the mid-90s. The Guardian says it was Steele who was. Regardless, the fact is that Steele was NOT head of the Russia desk or Russia section for 20 years. Perhaps he was head of the Russia desk for MI6 in LONDON from 1993 to 1997 although that would be a very rapid ascent for someone so new but, hey, The Guardian said it was true and that's what we write in Wikipedia.--FeralOink (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've lost whatever train of thought was involved in making my original post, but I think I was questioning whether there were sources to back the head of the Russia desk or Russia section claim, and also the implication that this was when he was in Moscow - the name of it obviously implies a London base, not a Moscow one. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And I remember thinking there was something about there maybe being a difference between an above board Barrow-headed "Russia section" of the Foreign Office and a more secretive MI6 "Russia Section" which might operate as a sub-section of that more public "Russia section". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Tiptoethrutheminefield. That makes sense to me now. I'm sorry if my prior comment to you sounded so grumpy. I am irritated with another editor, not with you.--FeralOink (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite amazing! Two desks!? Most surprisingly we now are beginig to understand that Mr Steele has a desk in Moscow. And one in London. :-) : Until 2009, Mr Steele worked as one of MI6’s foremost ‘Kremlinologists’ heading the spy agency’s Russia desk. --87.156.237.227 (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bonn IP editor, you don't seem to realize that the MI6's "Russia desk" or "Russia section" is in London, NOT in Moscow. Please re-read carefully my replies to you above. Steele worked in Moscow from 1990 to approximately 1993, where he presumably had a desk. From 1993 to 1997, Steele had a desk in London. The MI6 Russia desk is NOT in Moscow. So Steele had a desk in Moscow when he worked in Moscow, then he had another desk in London, when he worked in London. What is so puzzling that he would have a desk in each place where he worked? He was not in two different places simultaneously. You keep referencing this, see subsequent sections of this article talk page. Next, you left multiple messages about Steele on my talk page, first accusing me of being "rude", then making cryptic references to Sean Spicer (I have never even edited anything about Spicer!), saying that "my attitude is much worse than you thought". This needs to stop, now.--FeralOink (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Gag order on British media
The British authorities had put out a gagging order on their domestic media preventing reporting about Christopher Steele. Why was this fact deleted?!--87.159.114.72 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Source? --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Steele&type=revision&diff=759867286&oldid=759845937 -- --87.159.114.72 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * But, yeahh, never mind... User:Bradv just killed my additions ===> ″all based on reliable, published sources″: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Steele&type=revision&diff=760381270&oldid=760380868 -- --87.159.114.72 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best if you were to propose those changes one at a time. Some of them were useful, but others were completely unsourced, which is a violation of our biographies of living persons policy. Brad  v  17:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, the claim you just made above isn't technically correct according to the source given . It wasn't a gag order&mdash;it was voluntary, and only enacted for a short time until US media released the name of the source. Brad  v  17:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


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


 * But the content in the article page read: "Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance, secretary of the Defense and Security Media Advisory Committee, issued a DSMA-Notice requesting the British press refrain from identifying Steele, to ensure Steele's personal security.<...><... />"


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


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


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


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


 * What is your source for this text?
 * Brad v  19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


 * 1. Yes, there were two D-Notice concerning Steele. With the first one in 1999, an attempt to suppress a list of 115 MI6 officers, Steele lost his cover ;-). The D-Notice, according to investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, drew even more attention to the list. (Read: http://www.duncancampbell.org/menu/journalism/guardian/cybersillies.pdf : "It was Monday May 10, when the eccentric US-based Executive Intelligence Review placed its latest report, 'The MI6 factor', on the internet. This contained the famous list of 115 MI6 officers, now so widely disseminated following a government D-notice drawing attention to it, that all foreign powers know who they are") And one D-Notice in 2017, that one was deleted.
 * I acknowledged that the 2017 D-Notice had been deleted erroneously, while the reference to the 1999 D-Notice remained, and said that I would address that now.--FeralOink (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 2. "ardent" is your wordding! The source is The Mirror, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/picture-ex-mi6-officer-chris-9607903, a tabloid.
 * Perhaps I should have used the phrases, "confirmed Socialist" and "avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials". Those are the terms used by two articles (article1 and article2) appearing in a Cambridge University student publication, and a book by Stephen Parkinson titled "Arena of Ambitions" (about the Cambridge Union, which is the school's debating society). All three of these are cited in the article should you choose to look. I did not source any of it from The Mirror.--FeralOink (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 3. What User:Bradv did is vandalism.
 * What User:Bradv did is not vandalism, but rather, a request to discuss the changes you made. It has been worthwhile for me, and I hope for you.--FeralOink (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 4. The Sun is the United Kingdom's biggest-selling daily newspaper and as much of a tabloid as Mirror or Daily Mail. Are we now deleting those references too? The reference from The Sun has already been deleted.
 * I was referring only to The Sun's reference to how much Steele supposedly earned from the investigation. That really isn't known and The Sun isn't the greatest source to use for that information, particularly if it doesn't appear elsewhere.--FeralOink (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Some decisions here are highly arbitrary and even capricious. --87.156.234.131 (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that decisions here are highly arbitrary or capricious. Some of the content you added was rather peripheral to the article, e.g. about Boris Johnson being at Oxford when Steele was at Cambridge, and that they did not know each other. Other additions possibly gave undue emphasis in certain parts of BLP. It was certainly worth a discussion and gaining consensus on the talk page. Anyway, we can wait until others weigh in, as the page is now under a minor level of edit protection (autoconfirmed users) and more important, it is the subject of an AfD (Article for Deletion) proposal.--FeralOink (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My edits were not vandalism. I asked you nicely, twice, not to continue to make wholesale edits without discussing on the talk page and gaining consensus first. Since you appear unwilling to do that, there doesn't seem much point in continuing this discussion. Brad  v  05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a good revert of the IP by Brad - agree. My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bradv, unlike the above editor, I do not think the blind reverting of large quantities of material is a good revert. It is a lazy way to edit. It is obviously going to be perceived as aggressive by the reverted editor, making further discussions difficult - for that reason I think it is ultimately a non-productive edit. Re your edit summary of it, there is no requirement for editors to discuss every content addition before adding it. Bradv, your own comments here indicated that you thought some of the additions useful, so why delete them all? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisamente! May we now put back that infamous "gag order" until after 11. January 10pm? --87.156.237.227 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will now add the part about the UK's do not disclose order until after 11 January 10 pm --FeralOink (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To Tiptoethrutheminefield, please note that the edits made by IP user from Bonn, which Bradv reverted, had removed large sections of the prior content of the article, rather than merely making additions. I still feel that it was a good revert of the IP edit by Bradv.--FeralOink (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

ex-kgb?
is this article relevant here? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/mystery-death-ex-kgb-chief-linked-mi6-spys-dossier-donald-trump/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw Victor Grigas (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of residence in infobox/article text
WP:BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The inclusion of Steele's residence and the quote that after the publication of the dossier Steele left it as he is/was in fear of retribution from Russian authorities suggests that we should be considering the possibility of harm and omit the information. That the information may be available widely elsewhere is not a reason to include the information here and the quality, readability or relevance of the article is not affected by leaving this information out. Nthep (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nthep (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"confirmed socialist"
I think we need to qualify this claim in the article far better than we currently do. Posh Brits at elite universities often toy with the term "socialism" as if it were a cricket-esque game, while they guffaw between discussing the latest article to appear in The Economist and chewing on cucumber sandwiches, it is a joke to them and wouldn't have anything to do with socialism as it manifests in actual-existing socialist states. Steele's main career focus has been to work against forces in Russia who are trying to deal with the damage caused by neoliberalism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Steele as "socialist" claim we take in this article needs to be looked at far more closely or at the very least explicitly attributed to whoever made the claim. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point, Claíomh Solais. Instead of saying "He was known as a "confirmed Socialist"", perhaps change it to, "he was described in Arena of Ambitions as a "confirmed Socialist", or some variation thereof? I think it's a fair point to mention (coming from what at first glance looks like a credible source), but perhaps we can be more neutral in our phrasing. PvOberstein (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Citing Daily Mail kills the first source. Then not only would I call the tab not a reliable source because it's just a campus newspaper, the link under "confirm socialist" takes you to an article in... Wait for it here it comes... The Daily Mail. The two articles are in incestuous. Wikipedia has agreed The Daily Mail is an unreliable source so The Cab becomes unreliable when it repeats the claim and supports it with a link to an unreliable source. Not to mention its credibility would have been shaky to begin with, especially in regards to an internationally important figure who is a living person. Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I rephrased the section and made it clear that it's citing the book: Stephen Parkinson (2009). Arena of Ambition: A History of the Cambridge Union. Icon. ISBN 978-1-84831-061-2. Though I'm not wedded to the phrase nor its inclusion. PvOberstein (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also added a better citation: PvOberstein (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Violates WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

"Confirmed socialist" is contentious. It could be argued that it's only purposed here is to imply "once a leftist always a leftist" to impune Steele's reputation in regards to the Steele Dossier.

Why were the other discredited citations left in place? The conservative tabloid rag Daily Mail is the originator of confirmed socialist quote. It then becomes incestuous. Wikipedia editors have agreed The Daily Mail should not be used as a source. To use it as a source in a blp is almost unthinkable. Again it shows up in the Daily Mail, then a day later it shows up in the tab, and then three days later it shows up in a GQ article. If you go back to the version of the article before my deletion you'll see that the Stephen Parkinson book was being used solely to reference the fact that he was an officer the Cambridge Union in 1986. When my edit was reverted the reference was moved to justify confirmed socialist Without even bothering to delete the two discredited references Making it appear to be malt sourced when it's not. It's clear that whoever wrote the sentence with confirmed socialist in it did so using the Daily Mail source and the student newspaper the tab that linked back to the Daily Mail. All references to that line or incestuous. There is serious doubt in my mind about someone who is in violation of WP:NPOV is planting that phrase all around Wikipedia. I just looked at the page about the Cambridge Union and found that somebody that had used the campus newspaper the tab as a reference for a list of officers editorialized in the citation about steel being a confirmed socialist. I removed the editorializing that was after the link.

So this all starts with a citation to a discredited source and as morphed into accepted fact. I'm having a little trouble figuring out why the most prolific editor of this article would seem to be working so hard to defend its inclusion. PvOberstein Is obviously an experienced editor. I would have thought he would be familiar with the when in doubt keep it out tendency 2 broad brush implications that are contentious. It's hard for me to believe that whoever put it there Didn't intend it it as a smear. Without proper sourcing, like a major news organization or a book from a historian this comes across looking like a Rodger Stone style slander intended to impugn someone's reputation. And even then it should only stand with context and elaboration not the simple quote "confirmed socialist" which is completely ill-defined. I doubt that it's a common phrase that I've missed the usage of.

Now let's talk about the book. Arena of ambition : a history of the Cambridge Union by Stephen Parkinson. Parkinson has written only that one book Plus several articles for Conservative History Journal. Just take a look at his Wikipedia page and tell me you think he's an unbiased source.

With his I don't think anybody actually has the book or has read the book that posted to this article. None of the news articles containing that phrase give it any kind of context. My entire Columbus Ohio library system doesn't have a copy of it.

I could have sworn that when I first looked at this article and had the panel at the top warning that WP:BLP rules would be strongly unforced.

The GQ article that mentions the book you find just that phrase, no explanation of what led to the conclusion or explanation of why the phrase was used. I've never even heard the phrase used before. Just what is it "confirmed socialist"? How does one go about getting confirmed.

So now the phrase sits with the appearance that it's been triple sourced what in fact two of the sources are bogus. It is not multiple source oh, it has one source at best which is the GQ article. The use of the book itself as a source is incestuous. If someone has access to the book they should put a page number with the source and try to give it some context because confirm socialist doesn't belong in anybody's BLP unless it meets WP:BLP guidelines. I contend that this is not even close. Jackhammer111 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just removed “confirmed” as superfluous. The book publisher, Icon_Group_International, does not seem reputable.  Give me a little while and I’ll investigate further.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the publisher is Icon Books rather than Icon Group International.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole thing is one big WP:UNDUE "who cares".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s no less relevant than most of this BLP, if reliably-sourced.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's really not. Does it have any bearing on anything else in this article? Does it have any relation to the dossier? Is it relevant to his subsequent career? No, no, and no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is not about a dossier, or about a career. It is about a man.  Doubtless if he had been an arch-conservative and Thatcher acolyte you would be edit-warring to include it. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Striking because VM says he sort of likes Thatcher.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wish to continue this conversation please strike your personal attack and in the future please refrain from telling me what I would or would not do in your own imaginationland.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (and I sort of like Thatcher) Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of this information
The following information has been removed today:

The following additional footnote remains in this BLP:

The bit about him being a socialist has been in the BLP since January 2017 so it’s longstanding material. If it’s well-sourced, then it is as relevant as much else in the BLP. I’ll nose around to see if the sourcing is adequate or can be improved.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that out. I removed the footnote as well. And no, the bit is WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

'How Trump walked into Putin’s web'
The Guardian have a new article about Steele:. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Andy Mabbett, incorporating the information as I can. PvOberstein (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Senate Republicans referral for a criminal investigation
I don't disagree with the underlying assessment, but should we make the rebuttal to the referral a tad more concise?

The referral was met with criticism from legal experts.[48] A lawyer for Fusion GPS who had hired Steele said that the referral was just another effort to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the election and that "after a year of investigations into Donald Trump's ties to Russia, the only person Republicans seek to accuse of wrongdoing is one who reported on these matters to law enforcement in the first place."[48] One veteran prosecutor stated that the Grassley-Graham referral was "nonsense" and that it was unprecedented.[48]

As it stands it's three reaction sentences (with a long and prominent quote) balanced against the one-sentence description of the referral. Could we perhaps condense and fuse the second and third sentences? And perhaps use more specific names than "one veteran prosecutor" and "legal experts"? PvOberstein (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there anything more to say about the referral except that it was made? And sure, we can be more specific about the prosecutor and legal experts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, besides Peter Zeidenberg (already discussed at length), what other "legal experts" are named, mentioned, or even alluded to by the Washington Post?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. The source says "experts" plural, and so should we.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the source: 1. The source says "experts in criminal law" in one paragraph, it talks about Zeidenberg and especially Dillon in ANOTHER. The changed text falsely suggests that Dillon (and possibly Zeidenberg) are the 'experts' being referred to. From an honest reading of the article it's clear that this isn't the case. If an expert was viewing the referral "skeptically" then obviously they're not going to be making excuses for it. 2. Likewise the source says that some Republicans on the committee were also skeptical of the referral. THEN it says a Republican AIDE said... might as well quote it:
 * "It’s pretty clear that Grassley and Graham are interested in carrying water for the White House, but that is not reflective of the whole committee. There are members of Judiciary who are upset with Senator Grassley for carrying it so close to the vest.”

So this edit pretends that what the AIDE said applies to Republicans on the committee. That's false. I mean, we can have both. That BOTH Republicans and Democrats were skeptical AND that a Republican aide said that Grassley and Graham were "carrying water for the White House" (why is that part omitted?). But you can't pretend the two are one and the same, since a congressional aide is not the same as a sitting member of a congressional committee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've merely tried to fix the most egregious aspects of your edits, such as your inclusion of no less than four anti-Grassley quotes without one single quote from Grassley's side, and your little switch of "skepticism" to "criticism" being directed at Grassley (those two words are not synonymous). As for your allegations of misrepresentation and dishonesty, I guess I had better waste some time responding to that personal attack, though I don't intend to edit war about it.  You say my text suggested Dillon was one of the experts in criminal law who was skeptical/critical of Grassley's letter; on the contrary, I wrote "The referral was met with criticism from legal experts such as ex-prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg, while ex-prosecutor Justin Dillon said that there was not enough public information yet to criticize the referral" which very clearly distinguished Dillon from those experts.  And, yes, Zeidenberg is obviously one of the experts who was skeptical/critical of Grassley.  As for your second accusation, you are simply wrong that any Republicans on the Judiciary Committee "criticized" the Grassley letter; maybe they are skeptical, but skeptical does not mean critical, skeptical means having doubts whereas critical means disapproving.  So you can take your accusations of misrepresentation and dishonesty, and go look in a mirror.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If the issue is "skeptical" vs "critical" (this is not something you've mentioned before) we can change the text accordingly. But conflating Republican members of the committee with a Republican aide is a no-no.
 * And no, I didn't say anything about "dishonesty".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You said that I lacked “an honest reading of the article”, and (even if you had not) the word “misrepresentation” usually involves a deliberate intent to deceive, i.e. it’s a euphemism for lying as you must know. Heaven forbid you should acknowledge the overwhelming slant of the quotations you chose, or the slanted conversion of skepticism to criticism (which I already corrected).  As for your [expletive deleted] about me conflating Senators with an aide, I wrote: “Republicans on the committee were said to be disappointed....”  Not “Republicans were disappointed....”  They were said by the aide to be disappointed which is exactly correct per the cited source.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again - it was the Republican aide who said the stuff about "close to the vest". The Republican members of the committee were "skeptical".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said otherwise. I said Republucans on the committee were said [by the aide] to be disappointed that Grassley and Graham handled the matter without them (“carrying it so close to the vest”).  The aide said, “There are members of Judiciary who are upset with Senator Grassley for carrying it so close to the vest.”  &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest another approach: I think the second paragraph of the “criminal referral” section is UNDUE. Is a "rebuttal" really appropriate? And then a rebuttal to the rebuttal? For purposes of this biography, we certainly do need to report the referral and its circumstances, as we do. But IMO we do not need to quote a bunch of opinions - the GPS attorney and two former prosecutors - about the referral. I would delete the whole second paragraph except for a summary sentence, “The referral was met with skepticism from legal experts, as well as some other members of the Judiciary Committee, who said they had not been consulted about the matter. ” Anyone agree with this suggestion? --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm supportive of your proposed change. Though if we could find a specific name to use as an example, instead of (just) "from legal experts", I'd be doubly happy. PvOberstein (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ermm...
The article falsely claims that Fusion's research for the right-leaning Free Beacon was 'unrelated to Russia.' In fact, as Glenn Simpson's testimony to both the Senate and the House makes clear, it was pretty much entirely related to Russia, and Simpson would know, so the article shouldn't be misleadingly cherrypicking false sources that say otherwise. Nor should the article be claiming that Fusion was later retained by Hillary Clinton's campaign. Simpson makes clear that they were retained by a law firm acting for the Democratic National Convention, which is not quite the same thing. Nor should the article be claiming that Christopher Steele severed contacts with the FBI because he was frustrated by the sloth of their investigation, since that clearly isn't true. As Simpson explained to the Senate, Mr Steele was alarmed by the false, planted New York Times story claiming that the FBI had cleared Trump of all suspicion. In Steele's view, this meant that someone in the FBI was playing improper partisan games and Steele couldn't have anything to do with that, so he dropped his FBI contacts. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

New Yorker article
There's a new article on Steele from The New Yorker, which I will be looking to incorporate. It's currently available with the ref name of "yorker". See:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PvOberstein (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"Falsely"
Our article’s lead contains the sentence The Trump administration, congressional Republicans and allied media commentators have falsely claimed that U.S. intelligence community probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election were launched due to Steele's dossier. New and unregistered users keep removing the word “falsely”. Two questions: Is it stated and cited in the article that the claim is false? And if so, can we establish a consensus about whether to put it in the lead? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging some recent editors of the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be on both counts. If not, let's fix it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump Again Falsely Claims Russia Investigation Started With Steele Dossier
 * Jeanine Pirro via Trump: “Bob Mueller, isn’t your whole investigation premised on a Fake Dossier..."
 * "In the main, and in its parts, that statement is patently false," reports Fox News
 * "So that undermines this whole dossier, which remember, was the basis for this whole crazy investigation to begin with," said Jim Jordan
 * Fox News host contradicts Sean Hannity, Trump over dossier claims: ""The Russia investigation began after the former Trump policy advisor George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on his then-political opponent Hillary Clinton" soibangla (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, even from Fox News and Trey Gowdy, confirming that the Steele dossier did not launch the FBI's investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. The dossier was used, to some extent, to persuade a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to authorize surveillance of Page.

The Trump administration and GOP have made numerous false claims about the role of the dossier in both the Russia investigation and the FISA warrant on Carter Page. The dossier had no role at all in starting the Russia investigation, and only a limited role in resuming surveillance of Carter Page, who had been under surveillance previously, all totally unrelated to the dossier. American intelligence agencies had external evidence which harmonized with the dossier, and that evidence was the main evidence used for the FISA warrant.

I'm sick, so am a bit slow here, but it shouldn't be hard to create well-sourced content in the body worthy of mention in the lead. This happens to be a major, misleading, talking point, and it needs to be rebutted firmly, as myriad RS do just that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it isn't currently in the article it needs to be added BEFORE it can be restored to the lead. Shame on us for not noticing that deficiency. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Rudy's Deep Research
Guiliani cited this article today. "Since 2009 Steele has not been to Russia, or visited any former Soviet states and in 2012, an Orbis informant quoted an FSB-agent describing him as an "enemy of Mother Russia".[1]" This is a quote from the current version of this article, and the citation is sourced to the 2018 Jane Mayer New Yorker article, which is a valid citation. Rudy adds, "The below excerpt from Wikipedia, if true, is another indication that the Steele Dossier about Russia is a phony work of political opposition research. Comey never bothered to check when Steele was last in Russia. So where was it written and who wrote it? We demand answers!" Rudy's page was quickly updatd to reflect his crack intellgence operations, adding "Giuliani is also highly experienced in all of the internet and definitely knows how wikileaks works." Presuming this editor meant wikipedia.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OMG! That's hilarious. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Mueller's testimony to Congress
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. Thoughts?

"During Robert Mueller's testimony to two congressional committees on July 24, 2019, Rep. Matt Gaetz told Mueller: "...if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our newly elected president, that would be precisely in your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russian interference. But you weren’t interested in whether the Russians interfered through Steele—and if Steele was lying, then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people."" -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the relevance? What does this add to the article? We already know Trump sycophants think Steele is the anti-Christ; I don't see any reason to add more unsupported innuendo and personal attacks from someone who has "unabashedly aligned himself with Trump on basically all things." Moreover, creating the implication that Steele is guilty of crimes without evidence violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC about requested name change at Trump–Russia dossier
Please participate:


 * Talk:Trump–Russia dossier

BullRangifer (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Steele's changing attitudes toward Trump
Nocturnalnow, this is far too simplistic and misleading, so I have deleted it. The subject likely is not worth mentioning in the lead, and if it is, it must be covered in much more depth in the article body before that can be done.

Here's what we have on the subject from the Steele dossier article:

We have the option of doing nothing, or we can include all of that in this article, and then state something like this in the lead: "Steele had nothing against Trump, but as he came to see Trump as a threat to national security, he began to see it as important to seek to stop Trump from winning the election." -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)