Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 11

Musings

 * My own musings are that we should just close this dossier and not edit it for another year. Imagine how much more peaceful our lives would be. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There should be at least 3 books published on the subject before it is reopened. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Too late. There are at least 3 already. :) O3000 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they mean good books PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I find that proposition difficult to disagree with. PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL Drmies has one of the best suggestions I've seen so far on this article. I was thinking about an editing bonanza for these ever-changing political articles, in the tradition of The Purge film. Lock the article for all non-administrators six days a week, then unlock it for 24 hours and let the frenzy begin. If stuff gets in, it gets in, and if not you'll get another chance in a week. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have suggested this in the past as a wikiwide concept, not edits about breaking news while it is still news.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that we create even more contentious articles that will attract and keep busy all politically-minded editors and let them (us) have free rein. But, we modify the Wiki-core such that only non-editors can see the articles. O3000 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Separate all political articles into a separate, profit-generating, ad-supported-Wiki-slash-class-based-MMO, complete with editor avatars, microtransactions, etc., this way WMF could turn all that raw energy into WMF dollars and there is literally nothing that could possibly go wrong . . . Fact checker _ at your service  20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ...have we ever hatted an article? If not, let's set the precedent with this one. SMirC-chuckle.svg Atsme 📞📧 22:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven, have we agreed to this extent before? It feels good. Factchecker, we could take NOTNEWS seriously. Atsme, I'll be happy to surrender my MAGA hat for that purpose. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So a single shaky news report is fine for immediately adding to the article as evidence allegedly secretly helping prove a Trump underling's part in the conspiracy, but when a judge says on the record that another underling's criminal case appears unrelated and outside the scope of the collusion investigation, and it's independently reported by numerous news agencies, it's time to put on the brakes.
 * I suppose the news reports that there was no public evidence of collusion, that started coming out last March or whatever, have similarly been NOTNEWS for the entire 1 year+ intervening period, simply because editors don't like the idea that there's no public evidence of collusion. Fact checker _ at your service  23:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You should stop being such an enormously myopic whiner. For you this is about Trump. Drmies doesn't care about Trump, or Clinton, or Mueller. So your "so" is in fact a non sequitur, it is your attempt to put words in my mouth. Nice strawman. You're confusing me with some partisan hack like you, only from the other side. This is Wikipedia, not your or anyone else's blog. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Brussels sprouts.  SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care about Trump either, you troll, nor did I attempt to put "words in your mouth", I was just pointing out your sanctimonious faux-concern for NOTNEWS is being selectively dusted off when you don't appear to have any concern with a single agency's uncorroborated news report that was insta-added weeks ago and still hasn't been corroborated weeks later, and yet is left in the article even though it's supposedly implicating somebody in a crime. You're not even saying "yeah, that doesn't belong either", instead you are spitting at me for talking about the obvious double "standard".  Your pretentiously high-minded concerns are manufactured. Hell, you cited NOTNEWS to exclude a summary of RS fact descriptions that remained relatively unchanged for the past year.   Fact checker _ at your service  00:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker, Specifico, Atsme, me, et al, Hitchens said: “The one unforgivable sin is to be boring”. Sorry if I misunderstood Drmies; but I think it goes along these lines. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * O3000, far worse is failing to get the article right, being discredited and type-cast as unreliable, and then reading about it a few years later in academic publications. Just ask any pollster/strategist/news publication who predicted the wrong outcome in 2016. It will sting for a very long time. Let's hope we've learned from it. Atsme 📞📧 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd rather not learn from those folk. And, I don't see the relevance as we don't predict anything. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, that's a kind of chatter that kind of sounds like it kind of might mean something or other, but actually, no.  SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Predict....speculate...hmmm...close enough. SPECIFICO...sit on it...🥚=🐣  Atsme 📞📧 01:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry Atsme, I'm afraid this time you laid an egg.  SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Drmies - start another article Steele Dossier (and only dossier!) to sticks to the dossier itself facts? Things like structure, date, content, preparation. This article seems a lot of gossip that is not involved with or using the dossier, and to not have many facts about the dossier itself.   But that seems what the editors want to have.  CheersMarkbassett (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mark, I really don't understand your comment. Aside from some allegations in the dossier which are not included here (OR forbids us including content not mentioned in secondary RS), we document the gist of the dossier pretty well. We also document the preparation and timing. Do you want us to add the dates for each of the seventeen memos? We could do that. Do you want the summary of each memo? We couldn't do that without secondary RS mentioning those summaries. In some cases we have that and have included them, but there are several which are not included. I don't think you're interested in us doing any OR. We have been very careful to avoid that.
 * Also, what is this about: "gossip that is not involved with or using the dossier". What are you referring to? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:BullRangifer That names some of the factual basics about the memo, largely missing in the article.  (This article went a lot more with gossipy threads not about or using the dossier contents, which seems ironically appropriate for a collection of gossip as well as seems like the way press gives coverage WP:WEIGHT.)  The OR concern is not applicable as all that has been in RS, though plain factoids are not very sensational.  I doubt much could get in here, unless a separate article is done. Maybe a line or two of factoids in the article would be accepted.  Summaries of memos would be more contentious.  Any overviews or overall evaluation even more contentious.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously interested in fixing this, but I'm still unclear. Would you mind mentioning some examples? Even just one or two. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer - sure, but which part are you interested in at the moment ?  Some of this was coming up last February, but it depends on what kind of alterations being looked at:
 * Basic document information, giving simple fact and fixing errors here now ? e.g. Titles of the document sections with date produced,  how many there were, and time period they cover ? ?
 * Gossipy nature of the article, sometimes kind of going off into not related to dossier? The chase of many individual bits of sensation over who says what about it or about participants and individual points or process or events stemming from it, gets into quote not on the text itself. (Not about the dossier includes gossip or where article kind of follows the WP:WEIGHT of the tabloid nature coverage.)
 * Summary of sections ? That would be contentious because the overviews are by the document divisions, which will not match the article went with creating its own topic categories and quote-farmed snippets into those bins instead.
 * Overview or overall evaluation ? That would be highly contentious, because ultimately he was to deliver reports on what gossip or suspicions existed and not to newspaper or legal standards.  So googling questioning or critiques or reviews take is going to get negatives about the logic or QC on sourcing, and to state the plausibility of a memo - which is going to vary, and some folks would be upset.  VheersMarkbassett (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No we have not, and it has been voted down (not on this article, in wikispace).Slatersteven (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * All of this is why I prefer to spend my time on articles that are at least 50yrs old, the dust has settled and few people are kicking up more. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Reduce to a few paragraphs, and merge with Russia investigation. I somehow doubt many visitors read much beyond the lede as it is now. At best we have a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations and speculation cited to RS...a great spy thriller. The way this article is written is not limited to stating what is in the dossier, rather it appears more like an attempt to justify what's in the dossier leaving readers with the assumption that Trump is guilty by association.  There is no question about the partisanship involved - it was opposition research.  Sources tell us it is not credible, others say it is - I think it's borderline at best but only because a few things happened to parallel what real investigations had already turned-up (made public), not that it was a result of the dossier memos provided by anonymous sources known only to Steele.  Credible authors have explained why the dossier is false/problematic.  Their conclusions are supported by the results of a recent Congressional investigation, and also a year long investigation by special counsel that has produced no evidence of collusion. We know that several of the individuals involved in the spying of private citizens (FISA warrants) held high level positions in the FBI, and have either been fired, demoted or have retired. The Strzock - Page emails are damning, so I have not completely shut the door to this dossier possibly being the "insurance policy" to which Strzock referred - it is in the incubator waiting for substantial evidence.  There is also the recent OIG investigation report on McCabe which provides the justification for his firing. The OIG is still investigating some of the players. All totaled, I think these types of news stories and conspiracy theories belong in Wikinews not en.Wiki.  At the most, a paragraph or two may be justified but not with all the detail we're seeing in this article, and certainly not until the allegations have been substantiated and the theories have evolved into something with encyclopedic value.  It may even be best suited for Jimbo's WikiTribune. Atsme 📞📧 20:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal 100%. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah... no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That anyone could take this thread as a serious proposal is very telling. If any other editor had started this thread and allowed it to run, they might have been accused of making a WP:POINT violation, but we know that this was just wishful thinking. Actually doing it would have violated multiple policies and been a serious deviation from the purpose of Wikipedia. This has been more of an outlet for humor and expressions of free thought not normally allowed on a talk page. Don't take this thread seriously. Take it as a welcome break and an oasis. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I heard that Drmies writes for The Onion. OK, I was drinking when I heard that and it could have been Dr. Mises. In any case, whether this article makes sense or not, it’s not likely to disappear in the near future. (Or maybe it was Ludwig von Mises. Hope not, but it sounds kinda like “musings”.) O3000 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I've seriously suggested that indefinite Full Protection might be the best option before. Additions can be discussed here, and there will be less bickering over whose edits violate the rules. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s rather an extreme limitation given the current lack of vandalism. I’ve half seriously thought that a new 1AR rule could be of use in some articles. Like 1RR, but one addition per 24 hours. O3000 (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Look here...I'm agreeing with O3000 yet again. 😉 Atsme 📞📧 23:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What's all this talk about Muesli? Gilda Radner - 1980.jpg SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 😂 For a bit of clarity. Atsme 📞📧 14:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Dossier was one of a series of schemes to frame Trump with colluding with Russia
Now that we know that the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya was a set up. The meeting was arranged by a Clinton associate and Veselnitskaya was given a folder of incriminating information on Democrats by Simpson to take to the meeting. Veselnitskaya met with Simpson again after the meeting. This article gives entirely too much credibility to the dossier. There was no need for the information in the dossier to be accurate. Also need to point out connections of Bruce and Nellie Ohr.Phmoreno (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We don’t know any such thing. And, the section title improperly draws a conclusion, as well as sounding like something out of NewsMax. O3000 (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggested edit to lede: "The dossier was part of a scheme to make it look like the Trump campaign was working with Russia." New section: "Other Trump-Russia situations related to dossier" discussing Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Fusion GPS before and after meeting with Trump Jr. team and the Alfa Bank-Trump server fraud.Phmoreno (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Phmoreno, please remember to use the "sources-talk" template, not "reflist". I went ahead and added it under the paragraph that cited sources. <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 📞📧 17:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: this is the link to Reuters who broke the story. I'm wondering if maybe this material belongs in the Russia investigation, too? <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 📞📧 17:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am wondering where the source says "Dossier was one of a series of schemes to frame Trump with colluding with Russia".Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Only source I can find is this talk page. O3000 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, everybody knows that. It's obvious. Use your noodle. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) Absolutely not. Not on your life. The source - NBC - is reliable, but your conclusions from it are not. Please don't waste our time with this kind of stuff. Your proposals are either completely unsupported, or supported only by your own misreading of sources. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You said “The meeting was arranged by a Clinton associate” - not in the source and not true. The meeting was actually arranged by Rob Goldstone on behalf of the Agalarovs.
 * You said “Veselnitskaya was given a folder of incriminating information on Democrats by Simpson to take to the meeting” - this is completely invented, not at all what the source says. It says she used information she had gotten from Simpson a year earlier and had given to the Russian prosecutor general at that time. Simpson and Fusion say they were unaware of the Trump Tower meeting and had no idea she would be sharing anything she had learned from them.
 * You claim "The dossier was part of" this alleged scheme. Not true. The source actually confirms that Fusion's work on the dossier was entirely separate from the two-years-earlier work that involved her.
 * You claim she discussed the meeting with Fusion before and after it happened. That is flatly contradicted by your source.
 * Note that Veselnitskaya’s story has evolved over time. In July 2017, she said “I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that.” In August she said that actually she did turn over information about Clinton political contributions that she thought was damaging. In this article, from November, she says she turned over information about tax evasion and donations to Democrats.
 * In this article she says she worked with the prosecutor to confirm the information at the time she gave it to him, but insists she did not discuss the Trump Tower meeting with the prosecutor or his office before it happened. But in setting up the meeting, Goldstone said the information she would bring was coming from the prosecutor.

I've not finished adding sources and apologize for posting what I did ahead of a scheduled appointment. Will pick up on this later.Phmoreno (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Analysis from a few months later does talk about issues Phmoreno at least references issues which may not be in the sources he cited, though offhand the sources making the specific accusation of handing the folder did not look good. NYT mentions that Simpson the Fusion GPS guy met with Veselnitskaya on the day of the meeting both before and after the meeting, though Simpson's lawyer claims those contacts were totally coincidental and was actually related to Simpson's smear campaign against a Kremlin enemy, an ally of Sergei Magnitsky.: That's a pretty airtight alibi, right?  He wasn't there to help implement a Trump sting operation, he was there because of his work helping Putin undermine the US government and providing a cover story for Russia's abuse of the Interpol criminal referral system to get an enemy temporarily barred from entering the US.  According to that Magnitsky ally: "'He’s a professional smear campaigner and liar for money,' Mr. Browder said of Mr. Simpson. 'The credibility of anything that he does is in question.'"  Of that involvement NPR said: "For other critics, the Simpson transcript includes a reminder about his potentially conflicting incentives: Fusion GPS has also done work for a law firm that represented the Russian company Prevezon Holdings. Prevezon's lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was also present at the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Fusion GPS has told the Washington Post that it 'had no prior knowledge' of that meeting and denied any involvement." And news reports did focus on a "plastic folder" containing the information which, admittedly, came from Fusion, though as I said they don't actually suggest Simpson passed it to her, with that claim being in other sources that may not pass muster.


 * For what it's worth the NPR source has some extensive verbiage laying out the arguments about Republicans attacking the dossier as a tactical move and I have no argument reflecting material like that although I believe that POV is already pretty well put in the article. Fact checker _ at your service 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We go wot what RS say, not what we infer. Do any RS explicitly say what the OP is suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim about the folder changing hands and meeting arrangement, no. I have no idea what sourcing Phmoreno means to add later. There may be other worthwhile things to discuss though, such as the questions and conflicts re: Simpson, the fact that the guy who arranged the Trump Tower meeting thinks the Clinton dirt was just a pretext to get Trump Jr. in the room so they could lobby him on unrelated issues.  Fact checker _ at your service  19:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I brought this up is because in an interview broadcast yesterday Devin Numes discussed his suspicions of the meetings with Fusion GPS and Veselnitskaya before and after the Trump Tower meeting. I had previously read several sources discussing this meeting, but the most incriminating one involving a Clinton associate participating in the arrangement was the weakest. The House Intel Committee discussion of the events surrounding the meeting are on page 88 of the committee report. Veselnitskaya was given (redacted) information for the meeting by Fusion.  Both Fusion GPS and Veselnitskaya are on record denying they discussed the Trump Tower meeting.  They were together at a court case involving a separate matter before the meeting.  I have discussed the Trump server-Alfa Bank here before.  It was a planted news story pushed by a Clinton supporter that struck me as being fake at the time.  Sara Carter and John Solomon covered Alfa Bank's investigation, which suspected fraud and asked the DOJ to get involved. Phmoreno (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Phmoreno...let it incubate. Que sera, sera. WP has no deadlines. <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 📞📧 21:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

HAHAHA! That's all. Just...HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Mueller probably has had collusion evidence for a long time, but he hasn't made a report to Congress yet because reasons. Fact checker _ at your service  22:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lorty, I hope the Mueller report doesn't come out at the same time as the IG report. It's likely to get a bit western. 🤠 <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 📞📧 02:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Two significant stories: The George Papadopoulos spy trap and contractors accessing the intelligence database possibly including CrowdStrike and Fusion GPS. Digenova's interview is related to Section 6 of the Desantis Letter referring FBI and DOJ officials for investigation. Phmoreno (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Phmoreno, please stop posting unreliable sources here (and filling your mind with them). disobedientmedia and Daily Caller are not RS. desantis.house.gov is a primary source. You can't use it unless part of it is quoted in a RS. Otherwise you're performing OR. Keep in mind that the GOP coverage (such as anything from Nunes) of this is not intended to find out what really happened, but is intended to run interference for Trump and carry water for Russia. They are seeking to undermine (obstruction of justice) a legitimate investigation. What are they afraid of?
 * BTW, there was no FISA abuse. Carter Page (read his article) had been under surveillance, using a FISA warrant, since 2014, because of proven contacts with Russian agents. His FISA warrants were renewed three times by people (Republicans) appointed by Trump because evidence justified suspicions of possible wrongdoing. All proper. Read this section of our article too. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html

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


 * Having a private meeting regarding pay off to a hacker is totally ridiculous. Hackers always remain anonymous and have been taking payment in bitcoin.Phmoreno (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Phmoreno, try to avoid WP:FORUM. We're discussing RS coverage relevant to a major charge in this article.
 * My initial impulse when I found and posted the link above was to warn to be cautious and wait for more RS coverage, per NOTNEWS, but now this is blowing up all over the news. TV and major sources are covering it because of its significance. I haven't checked Fox News. They are probably playing something with panda bears and ignoring the story, or, since everyone else is covering it, they'll smother it in spin. A search finds no current coverage from them.
 * Cohen was very vehement in his denials. To keep your search relevant to this article, use at least these search terms: michael cohen prague dossier. Have fun and bring back what you find from the major RS. Also, this is still too early for content changes, but we may be able to add something very soon. McClatchy is a very RS, but we also need the most major sources, like New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, BBC. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reuters is mentioning McClatchy's report. That's big, as they are international. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is obviously significant and relevant, and should be covered in this article. More sources:
 * Why the question of whether Michael Cohen visited Prague is massively important for Donald Trump, Vox
 * Mueller can prove Cohen made secret trip to Prague before the election: report, The Hill
 * Michael Cohen Has Been Under Criminal Investigation for Months, Feds Reveal, The Daily Beast
 * - MrX 🖋 11:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump Attorney Lied About Prague Trip, Mueller Investigation Reveals, as New Evidence Comes to Light, Newsweek
 * Sources: Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier, McClatchy
 * "If Cohen met with Russians and hackers in Prague as described in the dossier, it would provide perhaps the most compelling evidence to date that the Russians and Trump campaign aides were collaborating."
 * I'm still a bit concerned that The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and BBC haven't mentioned this, AFAIK. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they will within the next 24-48 hours. We can wait until one or both of them pick it up.- MrX 🖋 17:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

RECENTISM...and here I am again agreeing with MrX...we should know something soon. <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 📞📧 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and agreeing with me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now covered by The Washington Post: Michael Cohen’s visiting Prague would be a huge development in the Russia investigation, as well as several other news orgs.- MrX 🖋 20:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Quote: "But this contradiction between a clear allegation from the Steele dossier and the assertion that it wasn’t true by Cohen and Trump helped drive the idea that the dossier was broadly discredited shortly after its release. Pick out the Prague trip and nothing that follows could have happened. Put the Prague trip back into the mix? A lot of the other parts of that allegation now become possible. What’s more, it undermines the credibility of those who insisted that the claim was completely without merit." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

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


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


 * I accept that there is WP:NORUSH but we do not need to wait for New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, BBC etc or any other "major source". If something is reliably sourced then feel free to include it straight away. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to adding material now. The story will probably evolve quite a bit starting on Monday.- MrX 🖋 23:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Mueller has evidence Michael Cohen traveled to Prague, report claims, The Guardian -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple RS are needed for such an extraordinary claim. While it may well be true, we still have our obligations to NPOV, NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. <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 📞📧 19:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Renewed denial


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


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


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

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

The Cohen connection: Next steps
I would like to begin working on text about the Cohen connection as discussed above. Currently, it looks like it would best fit under DNC email hack, leaks, and misinformation, but I'm wondering if it should have its own section, and if so, where?- MrX 🖋 15:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it could fit there. Is it a different allegation from the dossier which has been discussed in RS, or are you suggesting enlarging the existing content there? Otherwise, maybe the "Denials of specific claims" section? There we have content which is related to the allegations, but not appropriate for addition to the allegations section. Depending on how that section grows, we may end up having to give it a better name or splitting some content off into a new section.
 * We could even create a section for a cast of characters and put/move relevant content there.
 * Go ahead and start developing something. That will make the decision easier. Don't let the existing format force the content or cramp your style. You're good at this. Let the RS dictate the content, and we can fit it in somewhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK.- MrX 🖋 15:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * First draft:

Thoughts?- MrX 🖋 16:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Let's see what others think, and also about placement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL - at least wait until after today's hearing. Read the CBS Report. And here is another from NYTimes. <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 📞📧 17:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the text above predicts or projects any outcome, or other future event. If you're going to cite policy, at least demonstrate a scintilla of understanding of what the policy actually says.- MrX 🖋 17:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  for their comments on the proposed text.- MrX 🖋 18:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm uncertain what the source is for "3 of the dossier's 17 reports".  Offhand, this seems to be a WP:SYN claim, that should be backed up with a direct citation.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need to wait for a hearing if we have reliable sources, but I would also like to know the source for the claim about "3 of the dossier's 17 reports". We are not some OR scoreboard for if this dossier is right or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph of the Washington Post article.- MrX 🖋 19:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and - MrX 🖋 19:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the WaPo source should be moved up to maintain source-content integrity. The second sentence does not strictly require three sources, so I would leave the WaPo off that.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting that. The source has the disclaimer "but we hasten to note that these allegations have not been confirmed by The Washington Post." I think we need to be careful with how we word this, but something along the lines of your draft should be included. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the intention of "... which would...". I guess we could add "if true", although I think it's implicit in the current wording.- MrX 🖋 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that would be an improvement.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, this got interesting. More interesting, I mean.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, another piece of the puzzle falls into place. - MrX 🖋 19:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What you're saying in essence when you say "puzzle" is that instead of writing an encyclopedic article, you are hoping all pieces will form a puzzle which is SYNTH and OR using RS as pieces to the puzzle. Not good. <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 📞📧 16:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Spot on, . That's exactly what's going on here: editors acting like detectives or investigative reporters.  Which is the very definition of OR and SYNTH.  Which is most certainly against policy.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * instead of writing an encyclopedic article, you are hoping… Atsme, please assume GF and avoid casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Mueller's spokesperson warned about what some in the media have been publishing: “What I have been telling all reporters is that many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate,” the Mueller spokesperson said." What other sources say about the statement: Business Insider, Daily Caller. Good advice. <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 📞📧 12:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe Mueller's spokesperson was referring to stories (tales?) in The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, and Business Insider. That would actually make some sense.- MrX 🖋 12:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


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


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

NOTE: CNN report indicates that the Cohen raid had nothing to do with the Trump-Russia probe. There's also the Stormy storm. Adding this info now as an attempt to validate the Steele dossier is speculation. There are also sources that warn about misinformation. If anything, the probe will lead to financial inproprieties, which has nothing to do with the Steele dossier or Russia. Wait until something is confirmed. <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 📞📧 13:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That the raid was ostensibly for another purpose is irrelevant. Other editors suggested that it was too soon when it was too soon. Given the increasing, highly reliable sources, too soon is so yesterday. It should not have been removed. O3000 (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and have already cited the relevant PAGs. It is rather far-fetched speculation at best. And it's based on what evidence...a primary source that claims Mueller has proof? There is nothing I can find that verifies Mueller has ever released any information about his investigation. This over-inflated article appears more like an attempt to justify the unsubstantiated allegations in the dossier. Worse yet, nothing of substance has been confirmed about the raid, and no one knows why Mueller handed over the Cohen investigation to NY prosecutors. The fact that it is not part of the Mueller probe into Trump-Russia collusion speaks volumes. Sorry, but my perception of this article is that it's one big conspiracy theory because it is based on unsubstantiated allegations, speculation and rumor. Trump has not been charged with anything except "guilt by association". <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 📞📧 14:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to say Atsme, this does look like you're the only one with problem with this material. We have shown numerous sources which highlight the relevance of the Cohen raid with this subject. Pack your PAGs and get onboard. This train is leaving the station! 🚂 - MrX 🖋 14:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to say that is not the only one with a problem over the proposed content.  I see WP:OR and a lot of WP:SYNTH happening here along with tone and specific syntax that leads a reader to a conclusion.  That's not writing an encyclopedia, that's writing biased news story.  We aren't news and we don't parrot news agencies just because they said something.  When will the agenda-driven anti-Trump editors start applying some common sense at these articles and write truly encyclopedic content, is what I'm wondering.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 14:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, per my comment above about the methodology used in creating this article, I am trying to decide how best to handle it in light of the multiple policy vios of OR & SYNTH. Rather than disturb the "nest", I will simply suggest that the project will be better served with the Cohen information included somewhere else - perhaps his BLP if you think it won't be removed because of the questionable sources. What you're attempting to do here is "piece together the puzzle" you spoke about above, and that is not how encyclopedia's are built. That is how conspiracy theories are proven. You also need to keep in mind that NPOV cannot be superceded by editor consensus. <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 📞📧 16:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the "methodology used in creating this article". That has been explained in painstaking detail, so don't speculate about it. Really, some of your previous speculations have been outright alternative facts, and ignored the written and detailed description. The "puzzle" is composed of the pieces found in RS. We do not know what the picture will end up looking like, so all we can do is find puzzle pieces (RS which deal with the subject), and document them. This is not the creation of the puzzle, but the documentation of the pieces. The final puzzle picture will be known much better when the investigation provides even more pieces, and we will faithfully document them. There may or may not end up being a harmonious picture. I actually doubt it.
 * In the mean time, we do not concern ourselves with the final picture, especially based on any of our preconceived notions or political leanings, and we ALL have them. I repeat, we don't now what it will look like. The only way we can even connect pieces is when the RS do the synthesis for us, and they often do. Fortunately we can place some pieces in immediate proximity to each other, because they are on the same topic, and RS place them there, but often that's as far as we are allowed to go.
 * Using a puzzle to illustrate this is somewhat useful, but also misleading, because some of our pieces are malleable, based on following events. They literally change shape to accommodate better understanding, and that's why Wikipedia's articles are supposed to be updated. We do not, ever, wait for the picture to be fully formed before we start documenting the pieces. We begin to document the pieces as they arrive. (BTW, this "puzzle" talk has no resemblance to any previous description about the "methodology used in creating this article".)
 * If there has been any improper synthesis or OR, provide specific examples at the time you mention it. NEVER speak of SYNTH or OR without specific and fixable examples. This vague mention of acronyms is unhelpful and proves nothing. When you wave policy flags, provide specific examples at the time, otherwise they are just your way of saying IDONTLIKEIT, and we ignore it. Seriously. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Should this content be in the article? Pinging recent editors, , , , , and. - MrX 🖋 14:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Adding a few more -, <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 📞📧 15:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC) We shan't forget  and - MrX 🖋 15:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support per my arguments throughout this section. Recentism is not a policy, and WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because this is not routine coverage.- MrX 🖋 14:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Significant coverage in RS. Relevant to the article as it supports claims in multiple parts of the oft challenged dossier. Neutrally stated – includes Cohen denials. All the bases are covered. O3000 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Include but eliminate the first sentence (about the raid) and eliminate "a few days later", replacing it with "On April 13, 2018". The current paragraph implies a connection between the raid and the information, and that is not justified. The sources don’t make that connection, and neither should we. In fact I heard one of the reporters who broke this story interviewed on TV last night, and he said they have been gathering information about this for several months. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Changing my mind, see discussion.
 * . The connection is explicitly made by some of the sources (Reuters, 6th graf; CBS News) in that the raid resulted, at least in part, from a referral from Mueller. My wording is not intended to establish cause and effect, but the two events do have a close temporal relationship noted by several sources.- MrX 🖋 15:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Cohen raid resulted from a referral from Mueller. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here: we are discussing the report that Cohen went to Prague. When we say the report came out a few days after the raid, we are implying that the report is based on some information seized in the Cohen raid. That appears to be incorrect. (In fact I don't think prosecutors have even looked at any of that information yet; they are still arguing about attorney client privilege.) We should remove any mention of the Cohen raid from this item about Cohen going to Prague. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN is right about the raid. It is unnecessary to mention it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Include how can this be excluded, after all the discussion on this page about whether parts of the Dossier have been corroborated by other evidence? Significant and well-sourced and relevant. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Some of the reasons for exclusion are nonsensical.  WP:TOOSOON is about whether to have an article about a subject, not whether to discuss recent news in relation to a developing story.  WP:NOTNEWS actually undercuts exclusion arguments: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."  The exceptions listed clearly do not apply here.  It is significant that the dossier alleges a trip to Prague, that Cohen has denied this allegation to the House intelligence committe, and that news reports allege that Mueller has evidence contradicting Cohen's account.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the position on exclusion based on BLP articulated below. WP:NPOV seems clear on this: the dossier made an (unproven) allegation, which Cohen denies.  McClatchy's sources allege that Mueller has evidence to the contrary.  To cover this neutrally, we include a description of the allegation, Cohen's denial, and the reported existence of evidence contradicting Cohen's account.  BLP and NPOV mandate that Wikipedia not take a position on the veracity of these items.  But, since these details are now widely reported, per WP:WELLKNOWN: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources And that is what we are lacking: instead of a multitude of sources - that is, of INDEPENDENT sources - we have one source, which all the other stories are based on. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we have a multitude of reliable sources citing the McClatchy report. That amply establishes WP:WEIGHT in this context, and we can with no violation say "McClatchy reported that..." couched in appropriately neutral language.  Cohen's denial, too, is not an INDEPENDENT source.  When we have independent sources that offer conflicting accounts, we do our best to summarize those sources.  I do not believe that it is consistent with the spirit of maintaining a neutral point of view to privilege information in which the subject of a BLP appears favorably to that in which he or she appears unfavorably, other things being equal (e.g., WP:WEIGHT).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What I am concerned with, and I'm not sure if MelanieN is saying the same thing, is making such a potentially damaging and incriminating statement about a person with only one source that claims to have "two sources familiar with the matter" saying Cohen went to Prague. The claim remains unverified by any other source (reliable or otherwise). WP:NOHURRY applies. There is no reason to rush this news report into the article, when the other option on the table is to remain prudent and exert caution when including a claim of this nature, when the target of the report has strongly denied the news report. Other sources have referred to the original report, but in my view that doesn't add extra credence to the validity of the McClatchy article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why it is attributed, rather than stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will also add that this is an independent source, including Cohen's explicit reference of the McClatchy source in his denial of having been to Prague. This destroys the rationale for exclusion on the basis that there is only one source.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So any accusation publicly denied by the target is automatically upgraded to "multiple high quality reliable sources" status. Genius!  Fact checker _ at your service  22:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For an allegation, we simply need one attributed source covered but multiple high-quality secondary sources. That standard is easily met here.  We don't need independent corroboration at the allegation is true.  Please read WP:PUBLICFIGURE.  The key word there is documented.  Cohen himself documents the allegation, as do all of the dozen or so secondary sources discussed in this thread.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG requires multiple high quality reliable sources, not a single anonymous report that other news agencies have referred to as uncorroborated. Fact checker _ at your service  15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We have multiple secondary sources for the fact that McClatchy reported this allegation. WP:V is not an issue.  16:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We have one source and WP:REDFLAG clearly requires more, so as shown, WP:V is an issue. Fact checker _ at your service  16:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Several sources have already been given for the sentence "McClatchy reported that Robert Mueller's investigators were in possession of evidence that Cohen travelled to Prague in August or September 2016". You contend that McClatchy did not, in fact, report this?  If not, then the requirements of WP:V are clearly met.  We can say, in Wikipedia's voice, that McClatchy did in fact report this.  So the WP:V objection is a complete red herring.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument that "if he denies it, that's an additional confirming source!" was a red herring. Your argument that one uncorroborated news report becomes "multiple high quality reliable sources" if it is repeated (but not corroborated!) by other newspapers, is a red herring.  The obvious purpose of WP:EXCEPTIONAL is to prevent inclusion of poorly sourced contentious material, which is exactly what this is.  Fact checker _ at your service  19:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Your argument that "if he denies it, that's an additional confirming source!" was a red herring.' That was never my argument.  I'd encourage you to read it again, please, before continuing.  The fact, that I see you are disputing fails WP:V, is that McClatchy raised an allegation against Cohen.  Now, I attest that the existence of this allegation is evidently documented by many sources, with something to the effect of "McClatchy reported that Mueller has evidence linking Cohen to Prague."  Cohen also claims to the contrary, and explicitly references the McClatchy report.  So we have independent sources regarding Cohen's alleged visit to Prague that are in contradiction.  The neutral point of view policy is very clear that we should summarize these viewpoints neutrally, including careful attribution (please see WP:YESPOV: "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.")  That is precisely what I am trying to do here: assert McClatchy's notable opinion on this matter, and Cohen's also notable denial.  One editor raised WP:PUBLICFIGURE as a reason for exclusion, but that is also very clear on the matter: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."  The existence of the McClatchy allegation is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, as is the existence of Cohen's denial.    Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If the report is to be mentioned, the material should be rewritten. (a) The raid should not be mentioned. McClatchy indicates it is irrelevant: "The raid was unrelated to the Trump-Russia collusion probe". (b) "confidential sources" – Wot? Why not just say "two sources familiar with the matter" (McClatchy) or "two unnamed sources" (Reuters)? (c) Source #2 is an editorial analysis that should be attributed in-text per NEWSORG. (d) Something should be said right away about what the two sources familiar with the matter were not familiar with: notably whether Cohen actually met anyone. Politrukki (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC); added mention of Q & A 05:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Support It's actually ridiculous to try and exclude info which is DIRECTLY pertinent to the topic. Crying "Not news!" or "Recent!" is doubly ridiculous and bad faithed since if we go by this logic we couldn't include ANY developments about the dossier in the article. I could go and remove - err, 'scuse me "challenge" - the entire section "Use in the FBI's Russia investigation" or "Nunes memo" section because that too is "Not news!!" "Recent!!". EVERYTHING in this article is going to be fairly recent and newsworthy. Shameless, POV driven WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT weaselly WP:AGENDA !votes. And frankly, some of these "Oppose" !votes are borderline incoherent (and putting up the freakin' Daily Caller as counter source to this??? Come on people, at least pretend to have some standards).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This is a clear cut case when something simply must be included per WP:NPOV. And remember that WP:NPOV is our main non-negotiable policy. It overrides WP:Consensus here, whatever it might be. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Direct relevance to the article. To exclude would provide POV.Casprings (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support restoration. This is highly relevant material that has been covered extensively in the media, making headlines in many papers. It is important to keep this page up to date. Editors above do a quite sufficient job in explaining why, really, none the arguments for why should not be in the article hold water.--Calthinus (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support; the wording directly attributes the statement, and the publication that the wording attributes it to (McClatchy) is generally perceived as reliable so there is no problem in that department. GreyGoose (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Rewrite – I don't think the news coverage is as significant as some have said, at least when we look at the papers of record. The New York Times has republished two Reuters articles. The Washington Post has published two blog posts, a Q & A, and one editorial analysis. The Wall Street Journal has completely ignored the report. This is very much a borderline case.

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose per as well as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:TOOSOON.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 14:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per my argument above. There is no verifiable evidence. Not all incidents and/or speculation, even when published in RS, is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia per NOTNEWS. McClatchy attributes their article (primary source) to "two sources familiar with the matter" which is questionable at best...nice for baitclick, but nothing more. The Cohen investigation is not even part of the Mueller probe - it was turned over by Mueller to NY law enforcement because (according to CNN) it's about Cohen's financial investments in a taxi company. It has nothing to do with the Steele dossier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 15:08, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose this should remain out until it doesn't look and smell like a conspiracy theory.--MONGO 16:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not confirmed and no indication of what the evidence is.Phmoreno (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose until more information is available. Right now this only summarizes what one news agency is reporting and is not very encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose For the reasons listed above. McClatchy is still the only newsorg claiming to have confirmed this information. Now we have this: . A Special Counsel's office spokesperson warns the Daily Caller that "many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate. Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it." This statement comes after being questioned about the Cohen-Prague pandemonium specifically. Seems like good advice for both journalists and Wikipedia editors. WP:NOTNEWS. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, is it really too much to ask, that we wait until Mueller ends his investigation? GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose We should avoid speculation until actual facts are known. MelanieN also makes a good point below in regards to sourcing on BLP topics. PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose A single report from anonymous sources is not sufficient for BLP claims. Wait for independent verification. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proposed text states "Cohen travelled to Prague via Germany, a passage which would not have required use of a passport" which I believe is correct as the Czech Republic is part of Schengen, but wouldn't travel into Germany have required a passport? James J. Lambden (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not enough evidence of BLP claims.--Piznajko (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose As I said below, we should not include this unless it is reported by two independent sources - because it accuses Cohen of repeatedly lying about this, and a serious allegation like that requires two reliable sources per BLP policy. There has still not been a second independent report; it's still just McClatchy, and all the other news reports are based on McClatchy. If and when we get a second such report I will support including it. Since we do not have a second source, we should continue to leave it out IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: Melanie's rationale is persuasive. And correct. Obviously WP:REDFLAG is applicable. As everyone knows it says "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." One source is insufficient. Period. Other sources that pickup the story do not count toward "multiple." Hey everybody... my first edit to the infamous Dossier. I'm playing with the big boys now. Sorry, big girls too. Or should that be significant girls? Well, you know what I mean.– Lionel(talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per MelanieN's rationale. FallingGravity 06:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * "Singling out...Shameful"


 * Singling out editors and literally attacking them with insults because of their !votes is shameful. Talk about a perfect example of "I don't like it".  All your comments here serve to accomplish is starting a brawl.   <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Criticisms (esp. valid ones) are not insults.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if they were valid. Sometimes we all need to refresh our memories by re-reading relevant policies. In this case, starting with NOTNEWS, NEWSORG, and RECENTISM wouldn't hurt any of us. I recommend reading slowly. <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 📞📧 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You know I've already addressed that like four times already, right? Maybe if you read my comments above... slowly. To reiterate - everything in this article is newsworthy and everything in this article is fairly recent. This article exists. Get used to it and accept it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad my vote has been deemed "borderline reasonable," but where can I apply for a position as a Wikipedia sniffer? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie...it depends on what you intend to sniff. SMirC-stoned.svg <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 📞📧 20:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have struck out my "include" vote above; consider me neutral-borderline-opposed opposed since there is still no second confirmation. The reason is that by including this (even with the qualifier "if true") we are calling Cohen a liar - possibly a liar under oath. To make this kind of assertion against a living person we should have two independent sources, and we don't. If some source comes out with independent confirmation we should definitely include it. Until then I think we should probably leave it out. I still do say that we should remove any reference to the Cohen investigation. The proposed version implies that the counsel got this information from the Cohen raid, and that is not only not supported by the source, it is highly unlikely - bordering impossible. The special counsel wasn't part of this raid, and the office that did carry it out hasn't even begun to look at the material they got; it's all pending court review. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN is right about the raid. It is unnecessary to mention it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. Good catch, .  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s a good point. But, there have been innumerable suggestions on this TP, and in the press, that Steele is a liar. How under NPOV and BLP can we exclude one side? O3000 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What we say on this TP is irrelevant. Neither NPOV nor BLP applies, at least not strictly; we are free to propose things and discuss things that aren't necessarily going to wind up in the article. What matters is what we say in the article, and we don't say there that Steele is a liar. Nor should we imply that Cohen is. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While we are allowed to discuss, often what we discuss is a reflection of what is in the media, reliable and unreliable. The article provides several criticisms of the dossier, which is all well and good. Just want to make certain that we consider inclusion of the supporting sources. Obviously correct handling of NPOV can be difficult in such an article. We need to apply BLP to both Steele and those that would attack or support him.O3000 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC).


 * I'm curious why this: "Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____ " is being seen as acceptable as this section's header/title. It's quite non-standard, and the name was removed at the request of  because she correctly pointed out that putting the name of an editor in a talk page header is against policy/guidelines.  I know I've seen somewhere before at a noticeboard somewhere, more than once, where a policy or guideline was named as anti-naming editors in headers.  Can't put my finger on what the policy or guideline is, but I know that I've seen admins and long-term editor admonish and name some policy/guideline when they've removed the name and turned the header into a neutral, just-the-facts-ma'am kind of title.  I changed it, it was reverted.  What purpose does it serve or point does it prove to have the header remain as unnecessarily non-standard in its current state?  Shouldn't it be more standard and per TPG/MOS?  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 23:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All fixed - for those who may be curious about the guideine, see WP:TALKNEW. Thanks to Mandruss for pointing it out in a different discussion. <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 📞📧 00:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it fixed? Regardless, I'm thankful to  for knowing what elusive policy was being referred to.  I knew it existed (and not just in my imagination). <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you oppose this proposal specifically or mentioning the McClatchy report generally? This is what the article says right now: "McClatchy reported that the Mueller investigation had evidence that Cohen visited Prague in August or early September 2016 by traveling through Germany." Politrukki (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will have to reexamine the coverage. Your Rewrite vote identifies sources I was not aware of. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that the raid should be mentioned briefly less the speculation by McClatchy - but if mentioned, make it known that it is unconfirmed and that a warning by Mueller's spokesperson was issued following McClatchy's report. It's still NOTNEWS, so I'm hesitant to support its inclusion. The raid occurred but we don't know why. My editorial judgement tells me to exercise caution - WP has no deadline; therefore, our priorities should be getting the article right. If we must include speculation and opinion simply because it was published in RS, then it should be included using in-text attribution - without editorializing. Provide only the facts, dispassionate tone...NPOV. <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 📞📧 21:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly what said.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you mention the raid? The main issue is whether the possible evidence of Cohen being in Prague should be mentioned at all. The raid is just a sidetrack. Is there any indication that Mueller's spokesperson's warning is directly related to McClatchy's report? What if we keep the current content and add something along the lines of "Journalist Andrew Prokop said the report "could still prove to be mistaken", but [reason why this is important] ..., citing Vox? Politrukki (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bingo! You are correct on both points. There is no evidence the raid is connected with the McClatchy report, nor is there any evidence that there is any connection with the warning. Neither should be mentioned. The mention of the McClatchy report should be kept short, much as it is now. Some minor tweaks might be in order, but it shouldn't balloon. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Good point...I was trying to compromise which caused me to stray off-track a bit. There's no evidence it's connected, no reason to include any of it since it's pure speculation all the way around. <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 📞📧 17:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding about the so-called papers of record; using a web search (from April 13 onwards) I found the following:
 * The Washington Post has published an editorial analysis (that also says "but we hasten to note that these allegations have not been confirmed by The Washington Post"). One, two blog posts, and a Q & A (Eugene Robinson says "McClatchy is a first-rate news organization", but thinks it would stupid for Cohen to lie about visiting Prague). One, two in-house news articles mention the Cohen and Prague, but not the McClatchy report.
 * The New York Times has republished one, two Reuters articles. One, two in-house news articles that mention Cohen and Prague, but not the McClatchy report.
 * The Wall Street Journal has published one article that mentions the dossier and Prague, but nothing about the McClatchy report. In January 2017, WSJ reported that the FBI had not found any evidence of Cohen visiting Czech Republic. WSJ has reiterated the same point several times, previously in September.
 * My conclusion is that papers of record have provided some coverage, but no in-house reporting. But that is only one possible viewpoint. Politrukki (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the sources you list in your Rewrite vote I see all attribute the claim to McClatchy. Of the sources you list above that I've examined all attribute the claim to either McClatchy or Steele. If there are any that don't please let me know. Otherwise my position is the same – the McClatchy report shouldn't be mentioned until we have corroboration. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. McClatchy is the only news outlet with own sourcing. Sorry if I misled you. Politrukki (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Simple misunderstanding and (in my defense) not surprising given the length and format of this discussion. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

, the splintering of discussions and requests for input regarding the same material before the initial request has been closed is highly disruptive, as evidenced in part with the Cohen material. Local consensus does not/should not require the same amount of time as a formal RfC, yet here we sit, some 17 days later and the material I challenged on April 17th was restored without consensus by on April 18, the very next day with the following edit summary: (restoring previous unchallenged and consensus version). WHAT? It was challenged. We didn't even start the consensus discussion until April 17th, and here we are in what appears to be a blatant STONEWALLING attempt. Where is the consensus BR spoke about? I realize this Cohen mess has become quite confusing so please explain why the material was restored and the local discussion has not been closed so we can all be on the same page. <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 📞📧 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The key words are " previous unchallenged". It was long-standing and consensus content. (1,257 bytes)‎
 * The content you deleted was a greatly enlarged version (2,744 bytes)‎ which was challenged.
 * While that was being discussed, I restored the original, long-standing, and much smaller (1,257 bytes)‎ version (literally less than half the size of what you deleted) which had not been challenged. We're actually talking about two different versions of that content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to remove the existing reference to McClatchy from the article
Right now we have a second paragraph in the "Michael Cohen" subsection which says, On April 13, 2018, McClatchy reported that the Mueller investigation had evidence that Cohen visited Prague in August or early September 2016 by traveling through Germany.[98] The following day, Cohen again denied he has "ever been to Prague".[109][110] I propose to remove the McClatchy reference, and to add to the first paragraph the single sentence Cohen denies he has ever been to Prague. (All we say now is that he "denies the allegation" and names other places where he was during parts of that time; we need to include his more sweeping denial.) My reasoning is spelled out in the section above: I oppose any mention of the McClatchy article because no other news outlet has corroborated it; McClatchy is still the only news outlet making that claim. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I support this. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose this because McClatchy is a RS and no assertion is being made that their report is necessarily correct. By the reasoning that no other RS has corroborated their report, countless other references throughout WP would need to be removed. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To make my position clear, were this not a BLP claim a single reputable source would be sufficient. I don't believe the claim itself is a BLP violation but BLP is a factor in my vote to exclude. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Soibangla, certainly we are able to use information that has only a single source - but not to report negative information about a living person. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the (negative) allegation or incident, leave it out." Negative information or allegations about a living person have a higher bar. In this case, the negative allegation is that Cohen was lying. At least that's my take. YMMV. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if it weren't a BLP it would be a WP:EXCEPTIONAL issue because the claim is important, and while multiple agencies have repeated this item, WaPo caveated the report by saying they had not separately corroborated it. In any event I would think the not-newspaper thing is especially relevant went the claim isn't even firmly reported.  Fact checker _ at your service  04:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The source is WP:RS. Name the source and include the denial. Just don't put it in Wikipedia's voice, yet.Casprings (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - when/if the allegation is corroborated by Mueller, McClatchy can get a pat on the back but until then, 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 📞📧 16:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. A large number of secondary sources are available to corroborate the assertion that "McClatchy reported that..." (etc), so this is certainly something that McClatchy verifiably reported, and it satisfies the requirements of WP:WEIGHT.  Those arguing for a BLP exception have not apparently read WP:PUBLICFIGURE with sufficient care: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."   That is precisely what we have here.  What those arguing for a BLP exception here have apparently latched onto is the next sentence, which says: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."  We are documenting the allegation raised by the McClatchy report, and have ample secondary sources to satisfy the requirements explicitly set forth at the BLP policy.  The argument for exclusion is wholly without merit.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * (1) This report came out on Friday April 13th after close of business—and first thing Monday morning, April 17th, Mueller's office released a statement warning "many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate".
 * (2) At least one top news outlet, Washington Post, made a point of specifically saying "we hasten to note that these allegations have not been confirmed by The Washington Post".
 * (3) It's been over two weeks and still no sign of independent corroboration. Fact checker _ at your service  17:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It bears noting that Daily Caller first reported that, but did not name who said it (which would typically be Peter Carr, Mueller's spokesman) and specifically stated "A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office wouldn’t comment on the Cohen-Prague story specifically". Daily Caller has an established history of deliberate distortions. It's Tucker Carlson, after all. soibangla (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - local consensus above is to remove all mention of McClatchy, so how many times do we need to get consensus for the same issue? <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 📞📧 15:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The "remove" arguments are vacuous or worse. I see clear consensus to sustain this content. Maybe some relatively uninvolved editor will see this and put us out of our misery. There can't be constant tail-chasing over simple decisions such as this. We'll never get any work done. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this should be kept. Saying "McClatchy reported that the Mueller investigation had evidence..." is a perfectly normal way to frame it. But a much better way would be to place this into a better context, i.e. as suggested at the top of the section, "Cohen's office, home, and hotel were raided by FBI agents acting under a federal search warrant in mid-April 2018. A few days later, McClatchy reported that Mueller investigation was in possession of evidence...". My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if we keep the item - and that decision is still open - I STRONGLY oppose any wording that connects it with to the Cohen raid. AFAIK no reliable source has suggested there is a connection. For us to link the two events, just because they were close in time, would be unsupported Original Research. It's also extremely unlikely, from a practical standpoint, that there is any connection. "A few days" after the Cohen incident, it was still being debated in court what parts of the material could be viewed by the Southern District of New York office, and reporting suggested that they had not yet looked at any of it. Mueller is still another link removed from being able to see the material obtained by the U.S. Attorney's office. The likelihood that Mueller's office obtained this information within days of, and because of, the Cohen searches is effectively zero. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the problem (also saw comment by SPECIFICO below). Some rephrase would be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal: Different reporters have different sources for different aspects of the story. There have been numerous "scoops" reported by reliable sources that have been accepted here and in many other articles. Although McClatchy might not be a household name like CNN, NYT, WSJ and WaPo (which each have had exclusives on various aspects of the story) their credibility and integrity should not be discounted. No source other than McClatchy has reported "The Special Counsel is also investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Alexander Torshin, illegally funneled money through the National Rifle Association to benefit Trump's campaign" yet that McClatchy report has been accepted in Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) for weeks/months. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * McClatchy doesn't say Mueller just learned it from the raid. No such implication appears in the article text. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing should happen with the McClatchy info until the above challenged edit has been closed - which I just mentioned again via this diff. I'm going to borrow what said with reference to another situation because it works equally as well here: what I see is basically a ton of reliably sourced speculation which crosses the NOTNEWS boundary. I pinged MelanieN and BullRangifer earlier regarding the McClatchy info I challenged (removed) that was restored in part by BR. One thing at a time, please. We need to close and abide by the initial informal request for local comment before anything is restored or modified. We should not be STONEWALLING a request for local consensus that has gone on for 17+ days just because it doesn't fit a particular POV. If you disagree what local consensus indicates, start a formal RfC and eliminate all the confusion and ambiguities. <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 📞📧 00:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with what I wrote, but to make things even more interesting, there's this: Michael Cohen Says He’s “Never” Been to Prague. He Told Me a Different Story — “I haven’t been to Prague in 14 years. I was in Prague for one afternoon 14 years ago.” soibangla (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's a weird one. You're citing Drmies who has given no harbor to your POV suppression of this material? Does that make your view more or less credible d'you think? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I clearly qualified borrowing his words by adding "with reference to another situation". I credited him for the arrangement of the words so there's no copyvio. I have always admired his ability to speak volumes with so few words and they often fit well in so many different situations...<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 📞📧 01:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In other words, (b): Less credible. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, but bears repeating, now that Cohen himself explicitly references the McClatchy report in his denial. Even if we were to regard all news reports concerning the McClatchy report as a single secondary source (which is questionable), the further denial is obviously a second independent source. And it, too, was covered amply by several secondary sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, that makes no sense. If someone DENIES the claim, that somehow becomes an independent source CONFIRMING the claim? Sorry. We still have only McClatchy and sources quoting McClatchy. We do not have a second, independent source for the allegation that he did go to Prague after all. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it was an independent source confirming the claim. It is an independent source, period.  When independent sources that are in conflict, we summarize those sources, with attribution.  You earlier referred to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which states " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."  The added content easily meets the standard of "multiple reliable thirdy-party sources documenting the allegation".  Now even the subjects own Twitter feed documents the allegation (as referenced in other reliable third-party sources).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first local consensus has not been closed yet. The first discussion has to be closed in order to avoid disruption/confusion because it also refers to the McClatchey report. I can request a close at AN since the (informal) request has been open since April 17th which is longer than most local consensus discussions....unless there are any reasonable objections to my doing so.  It appears by the weight of the arguments in the first and some of them in this discussion that it's a pretty clear exclude.  Plus it appears more attention is being paid to NOTNEWS based on Drmies discussion below. <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 📞📧 01:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see any consensus to remove here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously I agree. And this discussion ideally should be closed by someone WP:UNINVOLVED, rather than by participants in the discusdion.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)]
 * Point of Order - this section about McClatchy was started after the other McClatchy consensus was under way for basically the same material; i.e. McClatchy's unsubstantiated claim...and it appears to me that the 1st consensus supports the removal of the McClatchy material. Keep in mind, that claim never gained any traction - it withered on the vine - and is noncompliant with NOTNEWS and NPOV (UNDUE).   <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 📞📧 22:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)