Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 10

Challenged information cited only to desantis.house.gov
''Continued from

added a paragraph cited only to desantis.house.gov, a primary source, here:. I removed it here as lacking independent third-party citation. Phmoreno re-added it here:, and I removed it I again here reminding him to get talkpage consensus for challenged material. He re-added it a third time here, with an edit summary of "Already agreed upon in Talk". Can someone show me where this material cited only to desantis.house.gov is agreed up on this page? GreyGoose (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell it is this section. In the collapsed sources part, but I have no idea if it had consensus. I would also say it would be a good idea to self-revert, even if there is consensus this article is 1RR as well. PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus whatsoever for addition of the precise sentences Phmoreno added which he cited only to desantis.house.gov. My understanding on these sanctioned Wikipedia articles is that any material removed as challenged must have specific talkpage consensus before restoration. Phmoreno has now restored the material twice without a single talkpage discussion. GreyGoose (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please, revert. I also do not agree with your edit.Casprings (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I see that this was added, but still using primary sources. That's OR. You must find secondary sources. I'm sure they exist. I'm going to remove it as misuse of primary source. That's OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I still support the basic idea of including this content, but from secondary sources, and most likely in the litigation section. My original "go for it" was made while viewing this on my little cellphone screen. I didn't notice it was only sourced to primary sources. When that is fixed, bring it here for consensus. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Although WP does not prohibit primary sources when there is no possibility of alternate interpretations and does not require secondary sources in such cases, those do exist and I was going to add some when someone reverted my revert. Here are a few secondary sources
 * Phmoreno (talk) 13:35, April 28, 2018 (UTC)


 * The challenged content:


 * I'm sure we can do better regarding sourcing. Townhall is not a RS, and for political content Fox News is generally deprecated, especially if we can find better sources, so let's try to do that. I'll start searching. Something like this must be mentioned in multiple mainstream RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Regardless of anyone's personal feelings in regard to Fox, it's still a reliable source. I'm sure there's more than one individual reading this discussion who believes that, as for political content, CNN and the NY Times is "generally deprecated", yet...they are also considered a reliable source.  What is it so many here love to say when content supported by proven to be Left-leaning sources is challenged?  Oh, yeah: "we follow reliable sources".  If Fox has posted it as a news item, that should be sufficient for inclusion. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 14:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a RS when it faithfully reports the news also found in more mainstream sources. Otherwise be careful, because it's a GOP source wholly beholden to the RNC and Trump, not an independent reporter of news. It's part of Fox Entertainment, has an extremely poor record for fact checking, does not retract errors immediately, pushes conspiracy theories, etc. It is not in the same category as real news organizations. Therefore, discerning editors of all persuasions will use more mainstream sources when available. If it's only in Fox and even more extreme right-wing sites like Townhall, then that's a sign it's fringe and doesn't carry much weight. Then we wait for more reliable coverage, and when it comes we use better, non-partisan, sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, bullshit. MSNBC is part of NBC entertainment, is it not?  ABC News is part of ABC entertainment, is it not?  Same for CABS.  My gawd, respected editors support using The Wrap as a reliable source in politically-based articles, but it's a freaking entertainment-based blog that refers to it's writers a "Hollybloggers".  Vox is about as  anti-right biased in it's reporting as you can get, but it's considered a reliable source and the majority of Wikipedia editors don't bat an eye when it's the only source to support controversial content.  If The Wrap and Vox can be trusted without question, so can Fox (based on your biased description of it).  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓
 * Haven't you noticed that punditry and news reporting are clearly separated on those other sites? There is no real separation on Fox News, with the exception of Shep Smith. Study the history of Fox News and why Roger Ailes created it. He expressly created it as an unofficial voice for the GOP. As for use of sources, when it's opinion we attribute it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know this, but ultimately practically any source, including sources on our blacklist, can be used as a source, depending on how it's used, but we do prefer more RS over less RS when possible. Sometimes only a fringe source can be used to document its own POV on its own article, and then it can be used.
 * If an opinion article is used for only its mention of a fact, then it doesn't need attribution and is a RS for that information, but if it's used for its opinions and interpretation of that fact, then it requires attribution. Again, it all comes down to how the source is used. Both uses are legitimate when done properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here are four solid RS: BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump allies urge criminal investigations of Clinton, Comey, Lynch
 * 11 House Republicans call for prosecutions of Clinton, Comey, Lynch, and others
 * House Republicans refer Clinton, Comey, and other top FBI officials to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
 * GOP lawmakers demand Sessions investigate Clinton, Comey


 * At first I thought this should be in the Litigation section, but it is only a "call for" something to happen. It's not part of the Nunes memo either. Maybe the Reactions section would be the best place for it, assuming there aren't other issues. I'm waiting for objections based on NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, etc. Should we include it now, or wait to see if it gains any traction and charges are actually filed? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This type of content would have to be included: "Democrats and others have argued that those representatives are seeking to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election." "The push represents the latest counter-attack from the right against the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign — an investigation that Trump continues to rail against."
 * Here's a full list of the names: "Along with Comey and Clinton, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, and FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were named in the letter."
 * BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Haven't you noticed that punditry and news reporting are clearly separated on those other sites? There is no real separation on Fox News, with the exception of Shep Smith."
 * , haven't you noticed the punditry and news reporting are clearly separated at Fox News? Guess not.  Because if you think Shepard Smith is the only exception there (and why - because he's a Liberal?), you really haven't been paying attention.  Chris Wallace gives Trump zero breaks.  Bret Baier is very balanced in his reporting.  As are Martha McCallum, John Roberts, Bill Hemmer, and Jon Scott.  And Brit Hume ... certainly tried, tested, and trustworthy from his long career in (real) news and journalism, pre- our 24/7 news and opinion cable news reality.  Heck, even Dana Perino frequently questions the Trump Administration and agenda.
 * "Study the history of Fox News and why Roger Ailes created it." Has nothing to do with today, sorry.  Look at the history of CNN and why Ted Turner created it.  It's a far, sorry cry from the original vision and intent.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

BR, please use the sources-talk template following the last of your cited sources. It's much neater and doesn't follow us all over the TP. I also want to mention that reverting the material added by was unnecessary. We can use primary sources when including specific facts: Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. I did not detect any OR in the added material. Regardless, if there is an issue with the use of a primary source, we don't automatically revert the material - we use an inline tag such as the primary source-inline or better source templates. Also keep in mind that is correct in that FoxNews is an acceptable RS for citing that material, so please stop referring to the leading news network as unreliable. Granted, some of the things the network's political pundits say are questionable but that applies to all political pundits regardless of the network. Let's not conflate it with news. Atsme 📞📧 15:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources-talk template added, because without any form of reflist, they all ended up at the bottom, instead of only at the bottom of this thread. I placed it at the bottom because I assume we're going to be adding more sources here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The content can now be developed further with better sources and NPOV coverage, noting that nothing has happened yet, and that this is yet another GOP effort to undermine the investigation. It's apparently quite newsworthy in fringe sources, with few mainstream sources giving it coverage yet, but I did find those few, so we can move forward, so work your magic on making a paragraph that will gain consensus. As noted above, I tend to favor inclusion when this is ready and if no objections of RECENTISM and NOTNEWS are resolved. I note you haven't raised those objections.... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, while some may believe the GOP is trying to undermine the Mueller investigation, there is no evidence to substantiate such a claim, so please stop repeating it. Keep in mind that there is also a possibility that the opposite is happening, such as the Democrats attempting to sabotage a sitting US President. We simply do not know at this point in time. Our job as editors is to leave our biases at check-in, and see that our readers are provided all significant views from a NPOV. Attempting to prove the dossier has more veracity than what has actually been corroborated is an exercise in futility until more evidence surfaces to substantiate the allegations. Former CIA director Brennon said the dossier did not play any role whatsoever in the early investigations, which is extremely important because if it did, more heads may roll, including Brennon's. If it did not play a role, which is highly questionable based on the FISA warrants, then it's not a biggy and the FISA allegations go away; however, it still begs the question about the dismissals and demotions that took place in the FBI. The IG's report is supposed to come out in May, so we sit and weight...this article properly. 😉 RS have indicated that the bulk of the dossier is unsubstantiated - we've been over this time and time again, BR - we are not supposed to push a particular POV or conspiracy theory. The fact of the matter is that right now, the Democrats hold the minority view (fringe view?) on the Intelligence Committee and that is not going to change unless there's a big upset in the 2018 midterms. Of course, anything is possible. In the interim, let's do our best to get the article right, and present quality work that strictly adheres to BLP and our 3 core content policies. After our readers have read an article, they should be able to walk away wondering if WP leans left or right...and that's how we'll know we did a good job. Atsme 📞📧 17:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Challenged edit about lawsuits
I added the following:

My edit was reverted with the following edit summary: (this does not belong in this key paragraph of the lede, which remains under discussion for consensus, and the edit is highly disruptive to reaching that consensus, and it certainly doesn't deserve this degree of detail here). I disagree with Soibangla's argument, or that it is in any way disruptive, or that is has anything to do with any consensus discussion that may be taking place. The material I added can stand on it's own. Will it be necessary for me to call an RfC? Atsme 📞📧 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is important info that must be included on the page. But it is already included in the body of page (could be even expanded if you wish). The objection by Soibangla was about including it in the lead, and I think that was a reasonable objection - I tend to agree with Soibangla. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summary of what's in the article - (my underline) lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.  The lawsuits very important and highly significant to the dossier overall, and it should be mentioned in the lede. To omit is noncompliant with NPOV. Atsme 📞📧 00:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The suits are far from among “the most important contents” of the article. Many suits are frivolous harassment suits designed to intimidate/silence adversaries and bury them with big legal bills, before the suit is withdrawn or dismissed. Trump is notorious for “winning” that way. Your edit might belong in the lede if a suit were actually won or lost with material impact. As it stands, your edit is a thinly-veiled POV to create an impression that plaintiffs have a valid dispute when that has not been established by a verdict, or even by much press coverage. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not in the lede. The lawsuits are well covered in the article, but they are not important enough for the lede. Especially not in this much detail. The lede is supposed to reflect the relative importance of the material in the article text; the subject gets a four-paragraph subsection which reflects its low-to-mid-level importance. If you want to propose a single-sentence summary ("Several lawsuits" type of thing) then we could talk about it, but my reading of the relative importance (as per WP:LEDE) is that we should not mention it in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not, Melanie? We're not talking about a scandal (except for scandalous material that is in the dossier itself). Those lawsuits are a verifiable fact and it's inclusion is compliant with DUE. To leave it out of the lede and have it only in the body would be noncompliant - the lead is supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the topic. We included the fact that some major media outlets refused to publish the dossier, and the 3 lawsuits support that they made wise decisions. Better yet, I'll just call an RfC when the other one is finished because I sense that May will be bringing a whole slough of new revelations when the IG presents his report. Incubate... 🐓🥚🍳. 😊 Atsme 📞📧 01:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because we have only a small subsection about litigation. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It can't get any smaller than saying a defamation suit was filed, who filed and the date. If that's too much detail, what shall we call the rest of the lead - a novel? The details of the suits are in the body text. Atsme 📞📧 02:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"The material I added can stand on it's own" Yet you appended it to a completely unrelated graf that is being actively debated for consensus, thus complicating the debate. At most it deserves a one-sentence graf, but even then, the topic does not warrant being in the lede, it's a minor item soibangla (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes of course it can stand on its own - it also provided BALANCE needed for the POV peacockery claim that verifying Russian to Russian conversations has given US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of parts of the document. What I'll do when the time comes is suggest removal of that fluff and replace it with factual information. Atsme 📞📧 03:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Not in lead One, the Cohn lawsuit was dropped. Second, they aren't noteworthy. People can sue in America. Nothing noteworthy has come from these lawsuits. WP:UNDUE, especially for the lead.Casprings (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't see this beyond a sentence in the article. You mean someone filed a lawsuit in American? Wow. DO WP:RS think these lawsuits are a big deal? Are they covered widely and often? No. Therefore, that should reflect in WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think "litigation" section should be made shorter because lawsuits resulted in nothing. But one phrase in the article is probably not enough. A few phrases. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...I wasn't aware that the litigation for the lawsuits concluded. Please provide a link so we can include the results. Atsme 📞📧 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the lead for the reasons others have stated. There's no independent significance to a private party filing a civil lawsuit—it literally takes submitting a complaint and the filing fee to the court—so I don't see how the material is important enough to belong in the lead, nor how it could be argued to provide balance. Dyrnych (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see two different discussions going on here, and they are getting mixed up. Some people (including Atsme's initial proposal) are talking about the lede; some are talking about the lawsuit section in the body of the article. Please let's make it clear, when we make a comment, which we are talking about. 1) What, if anything, should be in the lede about the lawsuits? Should there be a detailed description of each lawsuit as Atsme proposed, or a single sentence summarizing the fact that there have been civil lawsuits filed, or no mention at all in the lede? My preference: no mention. 2) Should the existing four five paragraph "Litigation" section in the article text be retained, or should the section be made shorter because "lawsuits resulted in nothing"? My preference: retain, and update as new developments occur. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. Re updating: Somebody please add the fact that Cohen dropped his lawsuits. I don't have time to do it myself. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on both points, i.e. nothing in the lead and retain lawsuits section. It does not mean that lawsuits section can not be slightly shortened or improved. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Everybody seems to sue everyone these days. If suits don’t result in some action that is notable, they aren’t notable. Nothing in the lede and one sentence each max in the body. O3000 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * MelanieN - just to clarify, I did not include "details" in the lead proposal - I summarized, so please stop referring to it as details. I simply stated the cause for all 3 lawsuits (defamation) and the names & dates of the 3 petitions. I did not detail each cause with a summary of what was stated in the complaints. For O3000 to dismiss such a very important litigation (which challenges the veracity of the dossier) would be akin to saying opposition research is not notable, therefore the dossier is not notable - all politicians conduct opposition research and unless the allegations are substantiated, they are not notable - delete the article. I don't see that happening anytime soon, and the same should apply to including the litigation in the lede. We do not/should not include anything in the body text that is not summarized in the lede. That little rule of thumb was tattooed on my SMirC-ass.svg back in 2015. Atsme 📞📧 17:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Isn't this precisely backwards? Nothing should appear in the lead if it's not included in the text of the article, but it doesn't follow that we can't include body text that isn't reflected in the lead. Dyrnych (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, two points. One, the names and dates of the three petitions are too much detail. At most we could say something like "Several civil lawsuits have been filed against Buzzfeed and Fusion GPS." THAT is what a summary looks like. Two, Dyrnych is correct. (That's what comes of looking at one's tush in a mirror; it comes out backwards.) There is always lots of stuff in any article that is not summarized in the lede. Only the MOST IMPORTANT ideas or concepts are summarized in the lede. The existence of a couple of civil lawsuits is covered in the article, but the coverage is a minor part of the entire article - not significant enough for the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 😂 - good 'un Melanie - is that the true definition of ass backwards? Anyway, I was using a 2x mirror, so now I know why such a bare-all view is called "mooning" - it has to do with craters. Re: my comment about the lede & body - apologies for tripping over what I was actually trying to relay regarding the importance of the lawsuits in the lead. WP:LEAD tells us the lead should include prominent controversies and also states Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Further down MOS:LEADREL it says: ...although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. If you can figure it out, let me know. Anyway, the litigation appears in the body, and it is significant information. How about something along the line of "three defamation lawsuits were filed against BuzzFeed and one against Fusion GPS"? We can wait until the lawsuits are settled to further define or remove. Atsme 📞📧 22:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. My rule of thumb is that if something is notable enough for its own section, it most likely should be mentioned in the lead. See WP:CREATELEAD. A sentence should do the job. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to see how the fact that lawsuits have been filed, without more, is significant enough for the lead. Also, note that other topics at the same level as the lawsuits—e.g., the death of Oleg Erovinkin and specific allegations in the dossier—are also not mentioned in the lead. Dyrnych (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I’d say that is a difficult argument to ignore. OTOH, Roy Moore just sued everybody claiming he lost because of a grand conspiracy. My point is that a lawsuit, in the political arena, is just another method of denying an accusation, albeit more dramatic and expensive. That’s OK. But, we have already included in the lede Trump’s denials. There is no need to also include lawsuits in the lede, which are often based on seriously complex arguments that are beyond the scope of the lede. A simple mention of lawsuits may be redundant and misleading.O3000 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The lawsuits are not Trump's, so I don't see why his denials have any bearing on it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 04:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not in the lead: excessive detail for the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph dealing with Republican dossier allegations
I have removed the following paragraph:

The first source, NY Times, does not address the Republicans' allegation and the second (NPR) is not faithfully represented. My understanding is that the Republicans allege the dossier was used to support the FISA warrant on Page, which the NPR source confirms: "The document alleges that the FBI and Justice Department relied on the unverified Russia dossier [...] to obtain court approval for surveillance on [...] Carter Page." This is distinct from the claim that the dossier triggered any and all investigation by the FBI into Russian interference.

I believe the Republican allegations and relevant circumstances and contradictions should be included so my removal is temporary pending accurate and consensus wording. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This goes back to the claim and argument that the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier.


 * For some reason, we don't even mention the fact Gowdy went on CBS Face the Nation and asserted this claim, but we do mention some random talk-show trivia where CNN anchors argued about whether a law professor was correctly interpreting earlier media reports about the dossier and warrant application process. Once one of the committee members came out and explicitly said the dossier was the deciding factor on issuing the warrant, it became fully irrelevant what people were speculating before official statements came out.


 * Of course, not mentioning Gowdy's claim, while going out of our way to "discredit" the law professor (in BullRangifer's words) did have the effect of making Trump sound worse than the news coverage did—a recurring theme at this article, as we've seen. Fact checker _ at your service  20:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * NPR reference states: "The memo undercuts another aspect of the narrative that some Republicans have pushed — that the Steele dossier was the sole foundation of the FBI's Trump campaign-Russia probe. But the memo says that was not the case."
 * NYT reference states: "Once the information Mr. Papadopoulos had disclosed to the Australian diplomat reached the F.B.I., the bureau opened an investigation" soibangla (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that's a reply to me or Lambden, but those sources don't contradict Gowdy's claim at all. Fact checker _ at your service  22:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Gowdy's claim needs to enter into this. We're talking about the dossier in the context of the Nunes memo, and the cited references address that. Perhaps James J. Lambden did not see "The memo undercuts another aspect of the narrative that some Republicans have pushed..." which appears later in the NPR story? soibangla (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the source doesn't connect that argument to Trump. The NYT source meanwhile does connect that argument to Trump, but it is not about the memo and predates it by 3 months.  I can see your point, but I think the prose may need to be adjusted.  Fact checker _ at your service  22:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Change "Trump and his supporters" to "some Republicans" if you like. Otherwise, the order in which the references are displayed is the only other possible source of confusion I can see in the edit, so maybe we can just reverse them. soibangla (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been in the article for a long time and should stay. Why this matters: because there is a Republican meme, often referred to by Trump and others such as Hannity, that the Democrat-funded dossier was the whole reason why the investigation was launched. In other words it was a setup from the beginning, a witch hunt, a Democratic plot against Trump. The NYT reference does refer to this claim, saying the memo confirms that the origin of the investigation "was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign". The New Yorker also spells it out: "The right-wing argument goes that Clinton operatives cooked up a scandalous piece of fiction, got Steele to pass it along to some Trump-haters in the F.B.I., who then persuaded their bosses at the Justice Department to open an investigation, and here we are, eighteen months later, with Robert Mueller and his investigators hounding an innocent President." That’s why it’s important that a Republican-issued memo specifically pointed out that the dossier was NOT the reason for launching the investigation. I suggest readding the material to the article, with the addition of the New Yorker reference after the first clause. In other words,

Contrary to assertions by Trump and some of his supporters that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was triggered by the dossier, the Nunes memo confirmed that the investigation actually began with a tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding a conversation he had with Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos in a London bar in May 2016.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a few comments. First and foremost, as a strictly factual matter and not getting lost in all the different things people have argued, we need to separate at least 6 arguments among what the sources say, not that we necessarily talk about them all but just so we're not mixing them up: (1) that the Russia investigation would not have occurred at all without the dossier, (2) that there was political influence on the conduct of the Mueller investigation, (3) that the dossier had significant influence on the Mueller investigation, (4) that Carter page would not have been investigated at all without the dossier, (5) that the Page FISA warrant would not have issued without the dossier, (6) that the Page FISA warrant would not have issued if the Clinton connection had been fully disclosed.

All of these arguments are out there in sources, some are pretty roundly refuted, e.g. #1 is denied even by Trey Gowdy and #4 is at least undermined, if not necessarily contradicted, by reporting that Page was on intelligence agency radars before the dossier. For reference, those are the claims that no investigation would have occurred at all claims and those are the ones that are clearly refuted.

That said, there's a big difference between an investigation existing and it blossoming into what it has blossomed into, and it's various forms of this latter blossoming that most critics are talking about when they complain about political influence and use of the dossier. So, that still leaves the other claims which, roughly speaking, all amount to the dossier being used to intensify the existing investigations, e.g. by allowing a wiretap of Carter page which, again according to Gowdy the House Intel Committee guy, would not have occurred without the dossier.

In order to fully understand why these claims are being made, first, a word about legal analysis of factual causation. This is just so we can understand it as editors, mind you, in a topic where a good chunk of the commentators are prosecutors or other government attorneys (once upon a time, most FBI Agents had law degrees). In the law, in analyzing the question of whether one thing caused another, if X would not have happened unless Y occurred, then Y caused X, even if Y was not the only factor that caused X. That is what people mean when they say the FISA warrant was caused by the dossier—as Gowdy said on the CBS interview program, the warrant wouldn't have been issued without the dossier. That's a paraphrasing of baseline legal logic known as "but-for" causation, i.e. no warrant "but for" the dossier. That means, if Gowdy is correct, then without the dossier, the Page investigation might have never amounted to anything more than a collection of files on a DOJ share drive rather than a federal wiretap on a campaign operative of the political opponent of the person who (at the time, secretly) paid for the dossier, during campaign season—something that can fairly be regarded as an intrusion into the political process if there is some sign of influence in the process by which the intrusion was authorized.

Anyway the point of all this is that not all these claims are refuted and some are being made by prominent figures. For example positions 2 and 3 have been espoused by, e.g., the nat'l security expert and USA Today board of contributors member James S. Robbins whose opinion I reflected in the opinion section of the prose I added. Likewise from my prose, Richard A. Epstein, a well credentialed senior think tank fellow, argues in Newsweek, essentially rebuts the Democratic argument that the Clinton association was duly disclosed: "To be sure, the FISA application that relied on the Steele dossier did say that some political sources were involved in the case, without naming the Clinton campaign. Unfortunately, that partial disclosure only makes matters worse. A half-truth in a setting that requires full disclosure is deliberately deceptive and akin to a complete lie." Yes, these guys are Republicans and Republicans are "right wing", but it is important not to characterize people like this along with Hannity, or to conflate refuted arguments with reasonable ones. I think it would also be nice if we could avoid characterize any of them as "ignorant" or dumb, as has been commonplace on articles such as these, and worse, making assumptions about who believes what, which is just pointless. Fact checker _ at your service 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we just stick to the point here? The Nunes memo disproved claims that the dossier was the original reason for launching the investigation. That can be said in a sentence, and should be. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes of course Melanie, I wouldn't want to talk about any larger issues that take a lot of verbiage to talk about, but while reflecting rebuttals of Republican arguments is grand, mentioning some of the arguments might also be pretty cool. Fact checker _ at your service  02:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Consensus-required also applies to removing long-standing material. While the definition of long-standing can vary from admin to admin, I take it to be more than four to six weeks on highly-edited, highly-watched articles like this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep: well sourced and relavent to the article. This page seems to be under attack from editors pushing a pro Trump narrative.Casprings (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep - this is longstanding material, and I do not see any reason for deletion. Also agree with NeilN. Hence restored. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to restore it, with one additional reference as I proposed above. I think it's possible that the latest removal of it was accidental - that intending to revert one small edit, someone also reverted this paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops - I see that MVBW already restored it. I will just add that one additional reference, then. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You added an opinion piece without in-text attribution, which is not nice. Moreover, BullRangifer thinks that Cassidy is not a reliable source: "John Cassidy....is unreliable. Politrukki (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, I just wanted a reference to confirm that Republicans have been claiming the dossier started the whole investigation - since someone said that is insufficiently documented. Would you prefer The Hill - “Allies of President Trump have claimed the Russia probe began with the so-called Steele dossier that was paid for in part by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).”? If so please insert it instead. --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would, but soibangla and BullRangifer don't think The Hill is a reliable source, see } You provided wrong URL (you must have meant this). Both of your sources support the notion that "investigation ... was triggered by the dossier" is a Republican/conservative claim, but that's already supported by NPR citation ("the memo undercuts another aspect of the narrative ..."). I would support soibangla's proposal changing "Trump and his supporters" to "some Republicans" and then you should remove the additional citation (Cassidy) before someone thinks three inline citations is overciting, and removes one of the solid sources. BTW, I did not receive a notification because the mention was not on a new line. Politrukki (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No official investigation
[responding to MelanieN (14:09, 29 April 2018)]

Melanie - what should be included is the fact that there was no official investigation whatsoever that started the Russia investigation. Nunes said it was "based on a review of “electronic communication” from the FBI and the Justice Department" which does belong in this article. The role of the Steele dossier appears to be headed in an entirely different direction. Let it incubate. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not was Nunes said. He said his assertion that the investigation began with “no official intelligence” was "based on a review of “electronic communication” from the FBI and the Justice Department," not the investigation itself.soibangla (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you talking about and who are you addressing, Soibangla? My summary that there was no official investigation whatsoever that started the Russia investigation, or are you referring to the quote from the source that said "based on a review of “electronic communication” from the FBI and the Justice Department"? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As indicated by the indentation of my post, I was responding to what you just wrote. The Newsweek source you provided does not say what you contend it says. soibangla (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What does it not "contend" - be specific. I quoted from the source - see the quote marks? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you quoted the source, just out of context. Read better. soibangla (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you wrote: "...there was no official investigation whatsoever that started the Russia investigation,.." (I believe you are summarizing there.)

There were myriad pieces of information which raised suspicions and led to the investigation: The multiple, Trump campaign encouraged, Russian-related communications and contacts involving Papadopoulos and Carter Page (Page made a five-day trip to Moscow in early July), the hacking of the DNC, the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, other secret contacts between Trump campaign members and Russians, together with intercepted conversation between Russian nationals discussing their contacts with Trump campaign members, and other information shared by friendly foreign intelligence sources, all these were factors in the start of the investigation before the dossier even mentioned Carter Page, and it never mentioned Papadopoulos.

This is from this section: Trump–Russia dossier:


 * "In late July 2016, "the CIA had set up a special group with the NSA and FBI... to investigate the extent of Russian intervention in the presidential election." Former CIA director John Brennan then "ensured that all information about links between the Trump campaign and people working for or on behalf of Russian intelligence went to the FBI."

This is an especially good source. Well worth reading. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one who is taking things out of context, or using SYNTH to piece together a conspiracy theory, and I'm certainly not misinterpreting my own response to Melanie. Yes, I am summarizing what RS say to avoid copyvio and to summarize per MOS. We don't provide every detail. My comment references the investigation into Trump-Russia collusion while yours references Russian interference in the election - two entirely different things, so please stop conflating the two. The Guardian article BR suggested as an "especially good source" ironically supports my position. Brennon (who has had issues in the past under Obama) was asked whether he had seen evidence of collusion, he stressed that the CIA’s business was intelligence rather than evidence and he could not make that judgment. There was no "official" intelligence conducted specifically to prove Trump colluded with Russia (and zero evidence to this day) which is why the FBI used the unsubstantiated Steele dossier to obtain FISA warrants. That fact is substantiated without the need to piecemeal sources using SYNTH. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Frida Ghitis opinion about collusion

 * The contested content:

BullRangifer - Hanh???? per request to talk, well did you maybe goofed or duped or are in flux edits since you reverted two edits in a row with the same tagline ???


 * |Revision as of 03:53, 3 May 2018 Undid revision 839392343 by Markbassett (talk) Restoring longstanding content is okay, per NeilN's interpretation of DS. Deletion of that is then not OK. Deal with this on the talk page.


 * |Revision as of 03:52, 3 May 2018 Undid revision 839346655 by Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) Restoring longstanding content is okay, per NeilN's interpretation of DS. Deletion of that is then not OK. Deal with this on the talk page.

My edit was not on a longstanding content, but I'm here per request.

My change was removing the bottom most section of Reactions, on basis of appears as a later speculation not a reaction for the dossier, and also seemed a photobomb or quotefarm or maybe remnant of recent edits.


 * |Revision as of 03:39, 3 May 2018 rmv last para - not about the dossier, just a photobomb or quotemine. "Collusion" is a later dog whistle, not a dossier item.

That content is not present and there is a major difference of section |at the end of January 2018 (or similar for at least 8 months before  ...)

The section gets a lot more content/edits and this specific subsection gets appended | by the end of February

After what looks like lots of BullRangifer edits in a couple months ... The Reactions section is much much larger and different by | 28 April 2018

But seeing the | 2 May version, I see the Reactions subsection "Reactions to specific allegations" has only the subsubsection "Allegation of collusion with Russia" with only one paragraph of a Frida Ghitis quote, one where she seems saying forget the dossier content we have a bigger topic now.

To me that's a remnant bit and now thin content to have two levels of section, so maybe a remnant. In any case, it seems not a reaction to any specific allegation of the dossier so does not match the section titles, and does not seem a significant part for the dossier article -- seemed just a stray quote of nto large note.

So ... delete ? Still oppose ? RSVP. Markbassett (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ummm.....that's a whole lot of confusing talk. Try to boil it down to the essence. Only your edit deleted long-standing content. The other one was the goof. User:Brian Everlasting has deleted it again, in violation of the DS restrictions, so I left a message on their talk page. You can read my reasoning there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It speaks to the basic theme of the whole dossier, that there was a conspiracy/collusion going on: "The most important question the dossier raises is whether Trump colluded with Russia...." Most, but not all, of the allegations fall under that umbrella. She's aiming at the central "meta" allegation of the whole dossier, not just one isolated allegation, and tying that into the question of kompromat and how a compromised President can be pressured "to act in Russia's interest." The prostitutes aren't even necessary. The act of secretive collusion alone creates kompromat. The salacious allegations are just spice, they are not the cake. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes and SPECIFICO, the only reason I haven't restored it is respect for 1RR since I've already done it once. Anyone else can do it since the deletion is a DS violation. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This section with content was on the page dated April 8 and possibly before (I did not check). So, it is long-standing content. The removal is a violation of the "consensus required" editing restriction. Please self-revert (I am talking about this edit). My very best wishes (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This text represents stable consensus content and should be restored. It can be challenged or discussed or enhanced via a new talk page consensus. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * However, speaking in term of content, I am not so sure. This is just a commentary, and a trivial/obvious one. Looks like a low-importance something, possibly a repetitive content. Therefore, I would not restore it, but do not mind if someone else does. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer - please, no requesting help to get around 1RR -- just wait the day out and meanwhile TALK. This is about you did two deletions in a row with the same tagline so I asked why mine (the second) that removed the final section and para since the tagline about NeilN was not making a lot of sense, so I came to TALK as the tag said, to ask about what is going on.

Basically we have a section "Reactions to specific allegations" that has been edited down to almost nothing left, just has a subsection "Allegation of collusion with Russia" that has only one paragraph. And that paragraph seems not particularly substantial or prominent or even responding to any of the dossier allegations. 'Collusion' seems a dogwhistle that came later and not presented in the article as said in the dossier. (Though mostly the article is all about he-said she-said gossip rather than dossier content.) So BullRangifer, please clarify why this revert, and I'd suggest maybe just letting it go? Markbassett (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already explained why this content is good to use here. Otherwise, since you don't seem to have been following along, I suggest you perform a search with these terms: Trump Russia dossier collusion (1,160,000 results). Then try it without the word collusion (197,000 results). That difference says a lot. Relatively few sources on the subject do not mention collusion in connection with this subject. "Collusion" is not some sort of "dogwhistle that came later". That is the red thread throughout the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
FYI: I added the content where it belongs:

However, in a May 4, 2018 court hearing, Federal District Court judge T.S. Ellis — who is set to preside over Manafort's trial — excoriated the special counsel, challenging whether the charges against Manafort arose from the Mueller investigation exceeding the scope of its investigative authority. Ellis issued no ruling, but demanded the Justice Department provide him with an unredacted version of the August 2016 Rosenstein memo authorizing the special counsel to pursue lines of investigation and prosecution relating to Manafort's payments from Ukrainian officials. Despite the judge's sharp rebuke, Politico reported, "At times, the judge suggested he may conclude that Mueller's initial jurisdiction when he was appointed last May was effectively expanded at a later point to cover the case he brought against Manafort in Virginia in February." soibangla (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If it belongs anywhere then that would indeed be the appropriate article (not here), but the too recent and undue objections still apply. I undid your addition.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * boohoo soibangla (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah seriously. We don't do this for the Supreme Court either, reprinting their comments during question time. ("Oral delivery"? Whatever.) That this happens to be widely reported is a consequence of the news cycle, with much of the news being delivered and endlessly commented on electronically. Will it show up in print enough to overcome this recentism charge? I doubt it, and we could just wait and see instead of rushing to edit. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A trial judge spouting off like that prior to the trial's start is very unusal, and might portend significant consequences for the trial proceeding, and whether Manafort might flip on Trump with major consequences, so documenting this in real time is easier/better than trying to back-fill what happened after the fact. If it ends up going nowhere, it can be removed later. IMO. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. That's backwards. If it turns out to have significant consequences, then these can be added later on. WP:CRYSTALBALL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTALBALL, no predictions are being made. It's about documenting an evolving current event that will not be ultimately settled and put to bed for maybe another decade, after myriad litigation finally ends. If we wait until it's all over we'd have nothing to write about at this point. Tracking events as they happen in such an environment is better than attempting to reconstruct a complex chain of events in hindsight only after they result in significant consequences. These sorts of stories take surprising unexpected twists and turns, with what initially seems to be trivial later morphing into significant. And many readers come to WP for updates on the current status, not for a history lesson, knowing that the content has been vetted by crowdsourcing in real time and the spin has been wrung out so they can get the true story as it stands. As I see it, this is what makes WP the ultimate authoritative source for the most contentious issue of our day. soibangla (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The degree of significance and the question of notability of this "evolving current event" is the CRYSTALBALL part. Right now it does not appear very significant. This could change, but we don't know that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think is the "significance" of the still-unconfirmed-weeks-later news report claiming there is evidence somebody committed a crime? Oh right SUPER DUPER IMPORTANT ENCYCLOPEDIC MATERIAL OF PERMANENT LASTING VALUE.  Fact checker _ at your service  14:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "The degree of significance and the question of notability" enters into CRYSTALBALL soibangla (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you been to motion hearings in federal court? Probing questioning is the norm, regardless of which side the DJ ultimately rules for, and especially in a controversial case where the judge likely wants to do the maximum to ensure that the ruling holds up on the inevitable appeal. Attaching predictive significance to questioning of counsel at a hearing prior to the disposition of the motion is odd. Dyrnych (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody's attaching "predictive" significance to anything, but the judge questioned whether the charges were related to the collusion probe, openly asked why a run-of-the-mill bank fraud case was being prosecuted by the special counsel's office. Seems relevant since the article has detailed dossier claims about Manafort being Trump's Russian conspiracy manager.  Fact checker _ at your service  18:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That information is relevant. Just not in this article. soibangla (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My commentary here about what might happen has no bearing on what the actual edit says, nor my overall argument for why the edit should be included. soibangla (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Manafort denials
I added this to the Manafort denials subsection.

The federal judge hearing the charges against Manafort expressed skepticism about the scope of the Mueller investigation, suggesting that the charges against Manafort were unrelated to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign or possible collusion with Russia and that the goal of the charges was to oust Trump from office. [additional suggestion] The judge said Mueller's office might still have the authority to bring the charges even without such a connection, but questioned why the charges had been kept with the special counsel's office when other unrelated charges involving Stormy Daniels had been referred to an outside prosecutor.

Thoughts? Fact checker _ at your service 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * VM Beat me to reverting this. The judge has not yet made any rulings. Taking musings just made during a hearing takes WP:NOTNEWS to an extreme. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I was adding some text about the goal being to get Manafort to "sing" against Trump, but I guess it's irrelevant anyway because this is apparently UNDUE.

Marek, no, I wasn't complaining about recentism, I was talking about the shaky and explicitly uncorroborated nature of the other report which Mueller's office seems to have almost specifically called false, not the fact that it was recent. I was also complaining about the failure to represent an entire year's worth of fact coverage saying there's no public evidence of collusion, but again—not a NOTNEWS complaint, more like a WP:FAILURETOREFLECTREALITY complaint. Fact checker _ at your service 17:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Story literally just broke. How about you wait a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also unclear what this has to do with the dossier. So yeah, even putting very very recentism nature of it, it's UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The judge's skepticism about Mueller's scope is not relevant to Manafort's specific denials soibangla (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Or to this dossier.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What is said today is denied tomorrow, slow down as this is not a news service. Give the story time to develop and the facts to be checked (many times).  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, the McClatchy thing was almost denied by Mueller's office, WaPo said it was uncorroborated, nobody's said boo to confirm it weeks later, yet it's still apparently DUE enough to remain in the article..
 * I think it's pretty DUE given its wide reporting. The article explicitly quotes dossier claims that Cohen arranged hush money to cover up Manafort's involvement in Ukraine as part of an alleged effort to hide Trump ties to Russia.  The charges against Manafort are constantly cited by editors as a reason not to discuss fact sourcing mentioning that there's no public evidence of Trump collusion, because, they say, the Manafort charges are evidence of collusion so the news reports are wrong.  Fact checker _ at your service  18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, the supposed "denial" by Mueller's office did not specifically refer to the McClatchy story soibangla (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I said they almost denied it. The story broke at like 7PM Friday night and first thing Monday morning, Mueller's office just coincidentally made a statement about news reports being false. Meanwhile Philip Bump of WaPo wrote "we hasten to note that these allegations have not been confirmed by The Washington Post". That was April 14th.  Any word that these reports have been confirmed or even solidified further?  Nope.  But still apparently NOTNEWS is NOTACONCERN.  Fact checker _ at your service  18:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No no, Daily Caller (a non-RS) allegedly contacted them and "quoted" an unnamed source who did not specifically deny the McClatchy story soibangla (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a fair enough point about Daily Caller and the comment is pretty generic so maybe it was intended as a "no comment", but do we think that WaPo specifically mentioned the lack of confirmation for no reason in particular? I guess they couldn't get Mueller's office on the phone?
 * Ok anyway. There's some stuff.  Enjoy.  Fact checker _ at your service  18:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a NEWSPAPER and there is no need to rush thing to print. Let the story develop and gather in all the facts, not just opinions, and then think about changing the article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems relevant to the manifold section already in the article and well sourced. But I would give it a few days to see if anything develops and then pop it in. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but I think the diffs show that the single explicitly unconfirmed report from one news agency alleging evidence of a criminal conspiracy was added to the article less than two hours after it first broke? Fact checker _ at your service  18:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit to which you refer was directly relevant to the topic. Your edit was not. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, you're mixing up policies. Whether the material is relevant and whether it is NOTNEWS are separate questions.  For NOTNEWS, the question is whether the material has enduring significance.  That's why I'm pointing out the McClatchy bit fails that standard.  A single report citing a single anonymous source, explicitly unconfirmed by any other agency and therefore treated with caution by commentary sources, has no enduring significance at all--it failed NOTNEWS when it came out and it fails now.
 * Second, this material is relevant because this article presents detailed accusations about Manafort's Ukraine lobbying as if they were evidence of collusion. That is why the article already has a section for Manafort's denials of any involvement with any collusion.  Fact checker _ at your service  19:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Second, this material is relevant because this article presents detailed accusations about Manafort's Ukraine lobbying as if they were evidence of collusion." <-- this is false. False. Nope. Nah ah. False.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article hashes detailed dossier allegations that Manafort received "untraceable kickback payments" from Putin's Ukrainian ally and "managed" the "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". Fact checker _ at your service  19:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first part has already been proven, and the rest has plenty of circumstantial evidence which is being investigated. Manafort has good reason to worry. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that most people that have ankle monitors attached to them are already worried about stuff. Fact checker _ at your service  19:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny, when I search the article for "untraceable kickback payments" I find... nothing. When I search the article for "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" it... says nothing about Manafort. So like I said. False. Nope. Nah. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh lordy, well there's nothing I can do if you lack the ability to read what's clearly in the article ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 * This is identical to the last conversation we had which lasted several days where you claimed something wasn't in a BBC article and the exact language I quoted was in fact in the article. Fact checker _ at your service  20:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's possible I'm missing something. Can you quote the portion of article which uses the phrase "untraceable kickback payments"? Or point out which part of the paragraph which contains the phrase "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" references Manafort or his past lobbying in Ukraine? Then you can get all "oh lordy" on me.21:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Volunteer Marek (talk)
 * The kickbacks are in the kickbacks subsection (SURPRISE!!!) and the "Key roles of Manafort, Cohen, and Page" paragraph is the one that says Manafort managed the conspiracy for Trump. Fact checker _ at your service  21:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, you don't get to weasel out of this. Can you quote the portion of article which uses the phrase "untraceable kickback payments"? If it's in the "kickbacks subsection" then you should have no trouble quoting it. And you also need to point out "which part of the paragraph which contains the phrase "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"- since that is the part you quoted - references Manafort or his past lobbying in Ukraine.
 * And I don't know what this "last conversation we had" you're referring to is suppose to be. Was it the one where you kept insisting that a source was "from just a few weeks ago", despite the fact that it had "A YEAR AGO" written in big letters on top, which I had to point out like four times before you finally admitted that you were completely wrong? If I recall correctly you were just as sure of yourself and just as belligerent about it as you are here. So, quotes, please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Break for weaseling purposes
Oh lord, "weasel" out of this? Again, the "Key roles of Manafort, Cohen, and Page" section says: "That then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had 'managed' the 'conspiracy of co-operation'".

There's only one conspiracy of cooperation discussed in the article, it's the Trump/Russia conspiracy, and it's just been claimed in the previous paragraph to be "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership"; the dossier is literally saying that Manafort was in charge of running it; and our article repeats things in considerable detail.

Regarding the BBC source it specifically had an "ANALYSIS" section that said the partisan bickering over whether the House investigation had gone far enough showed that no clear evidence had emerged: "That these are the key questions is good news for the Trump administration - an admission that no clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed." Yet you accused me here here and here of making "straight up misrepresentation" of the source. Regarding the separate quibble about the one Reuters source, it was a simple and inconsequential mistake about the date of the source, which made no difference because there was plenty of fresh 2018 sourcing, and I never accused you of "misrepresenting" anything. Fact checker _ at your service 00:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, weasel out, which is what you're trying to do. ''" Again, the "Key roles of Manafort, Cohen, and Page" section says: "That then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had 'managed' the 'conspiracy of co-operation'"." <-- What does this have to do with anything? Can you quote the portion of article which uses the phrase "untraceable kickback payments"? If it's in the "kickbacks subsection" then you should have no trouble quoting it. And you also need to point out which part of the paragraph which contains the phrase "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" - since that is the part you quoted - references Manafort or his past lobbying in Ukraine. Come on, you claimed it, now back it up!
 * These "simple and inconsequential mistakes" of yours are starting to add up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Strike this as an ignorant personal attack. You have no clue what you are talking about.

I haven't been making mistakes other than the one inconsequential April 2017/April 2018 date mix up that was inconsequential. You know what inconsequential means, right? It had no impact on any of the article content we were discussing.

The dossier quotes in the article clearly claim that Manafort managed Trump's alleged Russian conspiracy, and they clearly claim he received kickback payments from the Ukraine pres. I have already both pointed this out and explicitly quoted it.

Your repeated and debunked accusations of dishonesty are a waste of time and they are uncivil and unproductive. Fact checker _ at your service 14:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The way it works is you back up your claims. If you don't they're zeroed and the rest of us move on. Your choice. 👂🏽 👂🏽 👂🏽 <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a pure fantasy to suggest I haven't. If Marek can't read BBC article and can't read WP articles then has zero ability to contribute.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, I just realized that the reason I was missing the phrase "untraceable kickback payments" in the article is because it is misspelled in the article and was going to apologize about that part - you're right it's in there. But then you had to go and be an obnoxious jerk about it (you really could have just quoted it) so now I'm not feeling particularly apologetic. Especially with you pretending that you mixing up dates of a source by a whole year - when that was the whole issue of dispute - was "inconsequential". So tell you what, how about we take that April 17/18 mix up, and the "kick-back" (sic) mix up and call it even?
 * I'm going to let the BBC related insult slide (hint: don't insult others when complaining about "attacks"), especially since I've already replied to it multiple times. But if you want to keep talking about it, go ahead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get to weasel out of this.
 * The mistake about the date was inconsequential because FOR THE TWENTIETH TIME there were plenty of 2018 sources.
 * You claimed REPEATEDLY that I had "misrepresented" the BBC source, when you just weren't scrolling down to see the quote
 * This is merely an effort to avoid talking about all the other sources because they so clearly state there is no public evidence. You don't get to insult me for days over a bunch of trivia and then say "let's just agree to not talk about it".  The sourcing reports what I said it did.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, I see you want to keep going with the WP:BATTLEGROUND, rather than take this opportunity to find a compromise. Ok.
 * No, the mistake was not inconsequential because half your sources were outdated, which was the key point, and the other half were misrepresented. And you doubled down with obnoxious comments like "Ever hear of Reuters? They're, like, totally a thing.". And others. You were soooooo sure of yourself, you kept pushing that outdated Reuters source over and over again.
 * Yes, you did misrepresent the BBC source. No, it wasn't "just me" not scrolling down. The source did not say crap about "news agencies" like you claimed. In fact, this wasn't pointed out by just me, but also by Slatersteven. But you are soooooo sure of yourself.
 * What other sources? The outdated ones, or the ones you misrepresented (BBC and WaPo)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the mistake was inconsequential. As I've explained repeatedly, the only reason I included sources from 2017 was to show that TOP RS FACT SOURCES started saying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2017 (over one WP:RECENT year ago!) that there was NO PUBLIC EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. The fact sourcing from 2018 includes NYT, WaPo, BBC. These are top outlets.

Saying "news outlets have reported that" is just attributing things because I rarely put anything in WP editorial voice. Heavy attribution is a good and responsible method of writing articles and news reports about controversial matters should rarely be unattributed.

Anti-Trump article material is copy-pasted from a single weaker straight into WP editorial voice to to satisfy editors' desires to represent Trump in the most negative possible light, would you prefer we do that here? E.g.

"In February 2017, some details related to conversations 'solely between foreign nationals' were independently verified. Some of those individuals were known to be 'heavily involved' in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. The conversations 'took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier', giving US intelligence and law enforcement 'greater confidence' in the credibility of parts of the document."

That's almost 75 words about "corroboration" from one CNN source not even attributed to the source, and it's just stated as a straight fact in the lead even though it's citing unnamed sources talking about the "confidence" of unnamed investigators. So if there were additional sources backing that up and an editor wrote "news agencies reported that", you'd call it "misrepresentation", but with just one source straight copied into WP voice that's OK?

So shall we just say "No clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed" (BBC, March 13) or "there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts" (WaPo, Feb 23) or "as yet there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin" (NYT Jan 9) and just state it in straight up WP voice? These are all better sources than CNN. Fact checker _ at your service 16:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "the only reason I included sources from 2017 was to show that TOP RS FACT SOURCES started saying way back in 2017" - Really? That was the only reason? I thought the reason was that you couldn't tell a source from 2017 and a source from 2018 apart. I mean, it looks that way from your repeated insistence that it was from "few weeks ago" when it was from a year ago.
 * That second sentence ... well, I just can't understand it, it's incoherent. What is a "single weaker straight into WP editorial"? Also too many clauses packed into that sentence. At least you didn't bold'em all.
 * Also, I'm unclear as to what the relevance of your block quote is... it seems like you're upset about something else, and are trying to use this to correct that something else... which doesn't really make sense, because even if you were right, two wrongs don't make a right and all that, except, I'm not so sure you're right about either one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And also also, how many times do I have to copy/paste my previous comments on BBC and WaPo? These. Don't. Say. What. You. Say. They. Say. One dude is not "news agencies reported". And even that dude hedges his bets. And "sought to aid" is not the same as "colluded with" (never mind the "news agencies reported" bit). Oh and I looovvvvvveeeeeee how you omit the sentence preceding the "as yet there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin" - which is: "Since then, investigators and journalists have developed extensive evidence linking Mr. Trump’s associates to Russian government and intelligence operatives". Linking. Trump's associates. To. Russian. Intelligence Operatives. Extensive evidence. Cuz you know, that sort fucks your whole thesis about "no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump campaign".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm totally trying hide that sentence from the New York Times, and that's why I added a sentence to this freaking WP article that said The Times also reported that despite extensive evidence of links between Trump associates and Russian intelligence operatives, there is no known evidence of a direct link between Trump and the Kremlin. And also posted it on the talk page in my proposed content. It's the third freaking sentence. Jesus, you're dense.

The relevance of the block quote is obvious despite your playing dumb. It's a 70+ word series of quotes and paraphrasing from a single CNN article from early 2017, unattributed, right in the lead. So if your only problem is the wording of my attribution ("news agencies have reported that")—then we can just cite those fact sources as straight WP editorial voice, which apparently is not an problem for other content in the article.

So we can just say No clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed (BBC, March 13) or ''there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts" (WaPo, Feb 23) or "despite extensive evidence linking Mr. Trump’s associates to Russian government and intelligence operatives, as yet there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin" (NYT Jan 9).

Oh no, wait, I'm sure those paraphrases misrepresent the sources in some crucial way, right? And then we'll have to have alllllllll kinds of blather about my evil intent. So to avoid all that important chatter about me we could just quote those sources verbatim. Fact checker _ at your service 02:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The McClatchey info hasn't been removed yet? Jiminy Cricket!! There was obvious consensus to remove.  If an editor wants it restored, call an RfC in about 90 days and get consensus. Please abide by the restrictions. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Synth of "possible confirmations of collusion"
I get that people don't like RS fact coverage summarizing the lack of public evidence, but at least don't use SYNTH stringing crap together to show "possible confirmations of collusion" when there is plenty of top quality sourcing that says what the Mueller questions mean regarding the collusion claims. User:Soibangla please immediately revert this badly written prose that is not supported by consensus. Fact checker _ at your service 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited this article up to this point as it is such a tangled web of accusations, intrigue, and so much at play here. : I removed the content that is referencing. Discussion is almost certainly necessary for this kind of material, for the reasons stated by FCAYS, and also I think we may have a BLP problem with some of this, due to the largely debunked nature of the wild claims in the Hillary Clinton-DNC dossier (which I personally feel is a far more apt name, considering the genesis of the funding and purpose for its commission). Taking the advice of other editors, I'd be much more comfortable if we could be quite careful and be sure we all agree this is something that should go into the article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "the largely debunked nature of the wild claims in the Hillary Clinton-DNC dossier (which I personally feel is a far more apt name, considering the genesis of the funding and purpose for its commission" suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well you got me there! I personally don't like the article title. I don't think Wikipedia articles should be in the habit of supporting false and outrageous allegations in a dossier compiled by political opponents. But the material does seem in violation of WP:SYNTH to me. Congress hasn't found any evidence of "collusion," and neither has anyone else as far as I'm aware. I do believe a congressman of California named Adam Schiff has claimed to have the evidence, but has not communicated what that evidence is as of today. Until we have multiple reliable sources stating that it's possible that "collusion" has been confirmed, I think we should exercise more caution before putting this material into the article (and not just one of Trump's sons being scammed into meeting with someone who claimed to have "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, who in fact did not). Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "one of Trump's sons being scammed into meeting" = "Hannity rules!" soibangla (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite my edit summary, "possible confirmations of collusion" does not appear in the edit. What appears in the edit are three indications of investigators suspecting coordination, soliciting assistance and outreach by Trump associates. soibangla (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Soibangla, but if you have no interest in defending the material that you added into the article, I think we are done here. I would also like to point out that this page is subject to active arbitration remedies, and incivility/assuming bad faith (which making snide remarks about other editors basing their views on what Sean Hannity says certainly qualifies) is not permitted. Please don't take disagreements personally and let's keep a collegial atmosphere, here. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You just responded to my initial defense of the edit. I posted the edit, it was challenged, it is now here for consensus. I concur that you and I are done here. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The problems are clear. There is no reason to stitch together two CNN sources from 12 and 7 months ago alongside a NYT piece that came out 2 days ago. As I said, there is plenty of coverage where a single source will summarize the significance of these questions and the new collusion evidence they possibly point to. Thus no need for SYNTH using the 2 old CNN sources to explain the significance of the NYT source. Fact checker _ at your service 22:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact the CNN articles are dated is irrelevant, perhaps they should have been here all along but were overlooked, and now we've caught up. These things happen sometimes. Again, despite my edit summary, the actual edit is not SYNTH. And if you think my prose sucks, the solution is to fix it, rather than to use it as a "pile-on" excuse to challenge/remove. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

All of you - WP:NOTAFORUM. Another useless section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest there are some who seek to prevail with their POV here simply by gaslighting others into exhaustion with diversions and tortured, impenetrable verbosity. There oughta be a law against that. soibangla (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, User:soibangla, I posted a modest thread nearly a month ago asking why (1) the article was sourced so very heavily to 2 Guardian journalists and a newbie writer at Business Insider who have all given emphasis to claims that have been widely ignored, one of whom actually published a book declaring that Trump colluded to steal the election which is treated as a straight fact source for whatever reason; (2) why didn't we rely more heavily on top US news sources; (3) why would we use crappy sources at all (Paste, a Cosmo sex writer, etc.;) (4) why did it so aggressively ignore commentary casting doubt on the dossier.


 * This comment was not long or difficult to read, but it went totally ignored, I posted a slightly more detailed account and still essentially ignored, as did a couple of much longer posts which were complained about as both too long and not detailed enough, with one user going on for quite some time about a dubious "inability" to find a particular source that was referenced, meanwhile User:BullRangifer totally coincidentally began composing what blossomed into an insanely long and detailed diatribe which, while making some coherent references to some sources, in essence said, everybody who disagrees with anything on Trump articles is an Infowars reading dupe slave to Trump and Putin who not only supports him but also thrallishly believes things he says. It has not helped that he actually edits Wikipedia articles using this perspective, and it's a somewhat ironic stance for someone who maintains Twitter and Facebook accounts replete with references to progressive social activism and--at least by appearance--using Wikipedia to promote progressive views, as well as at least one direct reference to User:SPECIFICO, raising the troubling possibility that their tag-teamish like abuse is (possibly) being coordinated via DMs off-Wiki.


 * In essence, the message was, shut up, you're a troll who reads Russian propaganda, it's not our job to reflect your views, go find sources if you disagree.


 * When I came back with sourced content, which I boldly added to an important subsection that for whatever reason was pointlessly dead, I didn't expect it to go totally unchallenged but I did not seriously think editors would be reverting it. I thought people would be arguing about wording and talking about more sources that needed to be added.  There was plenty of room for expansion and I specifically put an "expand" tag in the commentary-saying-collusion-likely section inviting editors to do just that.  Moreover, the content was detailed and footnote-quoted enough that I don't see what shepherding of discussion I was needed to do at this point.  The material pretty much speaks for itself, it is not convoluted or subtle.


 * Finally, I certainly did not expect that the abusive users would actually double down on their abusive chatter, scurrying off to user talk to continue talking about me with references to my supposed partisan delusions and consumption of "junk sources in real life", and, worse, floating blocks, indef blocks, and topic bans for the crime of talking about these sources and throwing salt back when it's thrown my way.


 * In any event, I really do not see the harm in reflecting something that has been reported in top fact reporting sources, consistently and with little variation, starting last winter, and there has got to be allowance for the well-sourced and reputable commentary arguing against the dossier and collusion claims. Fact checker _ at your service  00:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At some point you need to realize that continued attacks and claims of victimization on article TPs and various editor TPs are not conducive to creating consensus. Respectfully, at this point I think you are your own worst enemy. I suggest you develop a new tack. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely we shouldn't talk about sources at any point. Let's talk more about my ignorant troll perspective?  A month of that is not enough.  More essays perhaps?  Fact checker _ at your service  00:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I just goofed and restored a deletion of a large amount of content. The total number of bytes fooled me. I now see it was a combination of two of Soibangla's additions added a few hours ago, in fact the subject of this thread. My bad. I have therefore self-reverted. Carry on, as consensus is needed to restore this content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that was an OK edit by Soibangla, and it can/should be included, possibly after minor editing. Also, no reasonable rationale for excluding it was provided above. This is merely a summary of content currently on the page, not WP:SYNTH. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:My very best wishes that "no reasonable rationale for excluding it was provided above." Would others like to provide reasonable rationale or should the edit be restored? soibangla (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello? *tap tap* — Is this thing on?

PROPOSAL: Prepend two sentences and restore this edit:

soibangla (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mueller's leaked wish list of interview questions is a great example of why high quality RS coverage of article subject matter can be encyclopedic even when it is recent. The list of questions Mueller wants to ask Trump is significant even though we don't know what questions he'll actually ask, and certainly we know nothing about the subsequent gotcha questions he will inevitably ask.  So, while I support the inclusion of this relevant material I remain troubled by selective application of NOTNEWS to exclude matters old and new that could be interpreted as showing the collusion accusations as unproven.  And thus I guess I would say I am not comfortable supporting material like this unless news coverage conceivably favorable to Trump could be included.  Fact checker _ at your service  00:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, gee whiz. It was not "Mueller's list". Better to read the sources before you start flashing the italics. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Robert S. Mueller III . . . has at least four dozen questions . . . according to a list of the questions obtained by The New York Times."
 * On a scale ranging from "highly pointless and wrong" to "utterly pointless and wrong", how pointless and wrong do you think your comment was? I'd say "utterly".  Fact checker _ at your service  14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to connect all your dots for readers who might be misled by this insistent denial: The questions in the leaked document are not written by Mueller and it is false to say they're Mueller's questions. And anyone who has actually read RS reporting on this revelation would know that. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The source just cited above is RS reporting and it describes the questions as questions that Mueller wants to ask Trump, which is why I referred to it as "Mueller's leaked wish list of interview questions".
 * I didn't say Mueller typed them up himself on his personal palm pilot because Sally Secretary was out of the office and all of his other subordinates were on the golf course. If you have anything to contribute here that is actually relevant to the article in any conceiveable way, maybe add it and then unhat this little subsection of nonsense.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You may not hat discussion of article content and sourcing just because it refutes your claims. Please read WP:TPG and let readers and editors form their own conclusions. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're just spamming nonsense onto the page. You didn't "refute" anything, nor did you even explain what you meant, the only purpose of your comment was to claim (absurdly) that I haven't read RS reporting on the subject.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Soibangla, none of the speculation in the proposal matters - it won't have any lasting encyclopedic value until the Russian collusion conspiracy theories are proven, and that isn't looking highly likely right now. Surprisingly, there's actually an encyclopedia titled "Conspiracy Encyclopedia"...maybe it's time for volume 2? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing in my proposed edit is speculative. "collusion conspiracy theories...isn't looking highly likely right now" is certainly speculative. The proposed edit contains four reliable cites that point to evidence of collusion that is in Mueller's possession, and this reportage has seemingly gone largely unnoticed. My guess is that some saw my edit and thought "excuse me? when did that come out?" when it had been there all along. And that might also explain why it was promptly removed ("it must be silenced!"). soibangla (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reject. The content does not seem to have anything to do with the dossier allegations. And there are major POV issues.
 * You have not summarised major parts in the NYT report (February 14). (a) "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation." and "The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims." BTW, wasn't this the piece Comey commented in public testimony, saying the report is not accurate?
 * CNN (March 22) report says the new information is not derived from the dossier. The CNN story is very suggestive: "though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing ... One law enforcement official said ... But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial." It is somewhat suspicious that CNN apparently does not have a followup to the story.
 * CNN (September 18) report does not seem to address the dossier and neither does the NYT (April 30) report.
 * Conclusion: even if we forget POV problems, two sources cannot be used at all, per WP:OR, because they are not directly related to the dossier, and two sources more specifically violate WP:STICKTOSOURCE, because the proposed content does not comment the dossier claims. Politrukki (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The content does not seem to have anything to do with the dossier allegations" — Just to clarify, the original edit that was removed contained this prefatory excerpt from the dossier to establish the edit's relevance to the dossier, I apologize for not including that here, as I was focusing on the specifically challenged material. This is how the proposed edit would read in full:

soibangla (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that you used that piece of unsourced material in the article. You cannot fix OR problems by adding unsourced material. If reliable sources have commented the dossier allegations, they might be relevant to this article, but tangential stuff does not belong. Politrukki (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Mention of "longstanding"
(inserting break since prior thread got retitled, discussion inserted at top and has gone from 'Bullrangifer what was that revert series about', and to discuss the mentioned item seperately) Markbassett (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN -- is the cite to you as a guide making sense for this case? I think he's referring to your line "Reminder: Consensus-required also applies to removing long-standing material. While the definition of long-standing can vary from admin to admin, I take it to be more than four to six weeks on highly-edited, highly-watched articles like this." The last para was part of a bunch of Reaction put in early this year and a lot of edits -- it's the only bit left of those and I didn't see your comment as a top note or know if you meant it for wide use. RSVP. Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that "consensus" requires more than the opinions of 3 or 4 local editors. I'm trying to straighten out something similar above - local consensus was clearly to not restore, but that apparently did not fit well with a small handful of editors, so they've decided to ignore the ongoing consensus and start something new with some slight mods. Noop...not how consensus works. We start one, we finish one...we don't break off and start another before the initial challenge is closed. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your question? Keep in mind I will comment if specific edits meet or violate edit restrictions, not on the appropriateness of content. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User:NeilN -- I think it is two questions, since there were three reverts with mentioning you and "long-standing".

"Restoring longstanding content is okay, per NeilN's interpretation of DS. Deletion of that is then not OK. Deal with this on the talk page."


 * First, did you intend this comment done for the Nunes discussion above to be a general thing for the article ? If so, I think that notion needs to be explicitly discussed and any result posted to the top of TALK so people at least know about it.


 * Second -- is this a case of what you meant ?  The delete was of an odd bit 'section - empty space - section - single quote' at the bottom of the article, I think put in with a lot else around January but after lots of edits in the area last month all that was left was this one which looked like a photobombing quotefarm / edit remnant.


 * RSVP, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First, my statement, "Consensus-required also applies to removing long-standing material. While the definition of long-standing can vary from admin to admin, I take it to be more than four to six weeks on highly-edited, highly-watched articles like this" was intended to remind editors of the consensus-required restriction already applied to the article: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." I've expanded on this further on my talk page in response to inquiries but the restriction is nothing new. did a more thorough job explaining. To quote her: The intent of the "consensus" requirement is stability of the article. That means that newly added material can be challenged (by removal) and it cannot then be re-added without consensus. It also means that an edit which removes longstanding material can be challenged (by restoring the material), and the material cannot then be removed without consensus. The default in all cases is the version which has been stable for a period of time. That does not make retention of longstanding material automatic; it makes it subject to discussion, with consensus needed to remove it.
 * Second, if the deleted then restored longstanding material truly is irrelevant or unnecessary then it should be straightforward to gain consensus to remove it again. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User:NeilN - thanks for the quick reply. Can I ask you to post this as a guideline so folks are not unaware of it due to being somewhat out of sight ?  A short note this TALK article top would do, though I'd suggest a separate guideline article so it could be cited for similar cases and would get openly worked on. Markbassett (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are over 200 articles, minimum, that have this restriction. Why is this article special and why now, when the restriction has been effect on various articles since July 2016? Also, what do you want to work on? Restriction wording comes from the admin (and not community consensus) and can only be changed by the admin or by appealing at AN, AE, or ARCA. This particular case is even more complicated as the restriction on this article came from Coffee who is no longer an admin and has currently left the community. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:NeilN - umm the question was can I ask you to post whatever the restriction is referenced as “NeilNs interpretation of DS”, (apparently something related to “long-standing”).  The why now is since I had never heard of a “NeilNs interpretation of DS” about “long-standing” and have almost no idea what it is.     Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, it's about four comments up in his reply to you. You even replied to him. He also pinged you. His wording, and MelanieN's, are both there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:BullRangifier And I asked if he would *post* whatever as a guideline, at the head of this article or as separate article that could then guide editors.  That he wrote here something *different* from the only visible mention in the Nunes thread, or that there is something in his Talk and MelanieN has something in her Talk is useful for his thinking but only demonstrates how little is findable by a cryptic “NeilNs interpretation of DS”.  To have invisible, surprise rules as something, somewhere is saying you do not mind if editors generally remain unaware and not using them.  “Long-standing” as a general talking point is one thing — invoking an invisible rule exists is another.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh! I missed the "at the head of this article..." part. Now it makes sense, and I agree. It is so good it should become part of all the templates. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are editors assuming "reinstating any edits" only applies to additions and not deletions or modifications as well? I need good reasons here before I go through the grind of ARCA and all that entails. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe because the only one I've seen (and apparently others as well) is the one at the top of this page, and the grammar allows for no other interpretation than what it plainly says: "obtain consensus...before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Those original italics even reinforce, and tightly limit, that meaning, which can only be referring to content which has just been "added" and then "reverted". Grammar's a tough task master.
 * The addition of your excellent and sensible wording would really improve things. It needs to be spelled out and not assumed. The fact that so many here are questioning, discussing, and arguing it reveals that the current wording is not clear enough to include your understanding. I think you'd get a lot of backing for this improvement. Increasing stability and counteracting gaming the system are needed reforms. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Coffee's stated rationale for leaving is quite interesting in view of the abusive sniping favored by so many editors at this page: "That's just why I'm leaving: this site takes hours of your life and most of what anyone get in return is nastiness and headaches from idiots too afraid to use their actual names"
 * It would be grand to be able to talk about stuff without having ignorance and venom spat at you, including by site admins. Fact checker _ at your service  15:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)