Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 14

Facts: "key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading, corroborating the rebuttal made by Democrats"
This edit should be reverted.

soibangla (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? The modified text says the same thing, just in a different, more logical, order. First, we learn what the FBI submitted to the court in the FISA warrant, then we describe how the press commented that Nunes was misleading and the Democrats' rebuttal was vindicated. — JFG talk 01:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to bury the lede of what the NYT reported, then attempting to downplay the significance of that lede by saying "This release prompted commentators..."


 * The facts you put first — "the FBI believed that Steele was "likely looking for information to discredit" Trump's campaign, but still viewed him as a credible source" — are mentioned in paragraph #15 of the story soibangla (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That argument would be valid at the Nunes memo article. Here, the subject of this article is the Steele dossier, not the Nunes memo. So whatever a source says about the dossier should have priority over what it says of the memo. — JFG talk 04:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Some commentators have even made the opposite argument (that the released FISA documents actually support the Nunes memo): Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner. Not surprisingly, these sources and commentators tend to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but that doesn't mean we should ignore WP:NPOV. FallingGravity 06:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One more reason to place facts first and opinions second., as you just reverted and nobody wants to go into an edit war, we would appreciate your comments here in light of 's comment showing a diversity of well-sourced opinions on the matter. — JFG talk 12:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, the Washington Examiner is rarely, if ever, a RS here, especially Byron York, who consistently takes the conspiratorial view that defends Trump and considers the whole Trump-Russia business to be a witch hunt, ergo, he's not on the side of RS, and writes for a paper that's not a RS. He's fringe, and we give more weight to mainstream RS.
 * The WSJ, while a RS, contains many articles and opinions which fall on all sides of issues, even though it's a traditionally conservative paper. This particular article immediately starts with a debunked premise ("The documents show the bureau relied heavily on the Steele dossier.") on the wrong side of the issues, the side which has been roundly debunked by most RS, so it's not a RS in this instance, but a repetition of old and debunked fringe views.
 * We already know the dossier was part of the basis for seeking at least one of the warrants, but it was not the only or major basis, but the WSJ wants us to think it was and that this would undermine the legitimacy of the four warrants. That's BS. That's also Trump's view, and we do mention such fringe views. Do we need to do it again? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We follow RS here, and if they are now saying it was a major basis for the warrant it is OR to say otherwise. No conspiracy theories here please. PackMecEng (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I can't get past WSJ's paywall. Ugh! So, tell me what's new here that isn't a repetition of the conspiracy theories already debunked? What is worth repeating, or what is new? What has changed because of this document? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically the WSJ source says "The documents show the bureau relied heavily on the Steele dossier." when talking about the FISA application. PackMecEng (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a WSJ article, it's a WSJ editorial. The WSJ editorial board, including that kook Kim Strassel, are notorious, shameless cartoonish liars. They just don't give a damn. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that is why I linked the article so people could read it and determine reliability. Also yes the WSJ editorial board is notable. PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A WSJ editorial is never, ever a RS. Articles, yes. Editorials, nope. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In this situation they are actually fine, same with Washington Examiner as well. PackMecEng (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already given you two examples in which both sources brazenly lie. You want more? I can do it. They're trash. Period. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw your misrepresented quotes. Has nothing to do with what we are talking about. But eh sure whatever you say kid PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also here is a link to the archived site behind the paywall. PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The WSJ editorial board and Byron York? Really? HAHAHA! The WSJ editorial asserts: "The FISA documents also confirm that the FBI cited a Sept. 23, 2016 story in Yahoo News to buttress its Steele dossier information with the court—even though Mr. Steele was also the source for the Yahoo News story." That is categorically false; the application cited the Yahoo story only to show that Page had denied allegations against him. The Byron York piece asserts as "accurate" this passage of the Nunes memo: "Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony -- "salacious and unverified." That, too, is categorically false, check the transcript: Comey said "some personally sensitive aspects" of the dossier were "salacious and unverified," not the entire dossier. The peetape allegation. At least some of the dossier contents have been independently verified by American IC. Honestly, how many times do these falsehoods have to be smacked down before the people who keep repeating them stop? soibangla (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"...the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed." What to Make of the Carter Page FISA Applications -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * These are all great analysis and opinions, and maybe some of them deserve a place in the article. To get back to the original wording:
 * "key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading": Which "key assertions" were false and which were misleading? If the answer is in the sources, then maybe the article should make this clear.
 * "corroborating the rebuttal made by Democrats": What is this "rebuttal made by Democrats"? Is it everything in the rebuttal memo (which is still mostly classified)? Again, the article should make this clear instead of having a vague statement.
 * The sentence apparently lifts conclusions from a NY Times news analysis article and Lawfare blog post without even discussing their arguments. FallingGravity 05:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This article should touch upon the Nunes memo as a related matter, but the details you mention are discussed at length in that article. soibangla (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, what matters here is what the documents say about the dossier, not partisan games about who was right and who was wrong. FallingGravity 15:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, this edit buries the lede (namely, "records that plainly demonstrated that key elements of Republicans’ claims about the bureau’s actions were misleading or false") and should be reverted  soibangla (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because it's a "lede" for a different article, aka the Nunes memo. Read WP:OFFTOPIC. FallingGravity 00:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's a relevant part of the "Subject of the Nunes memo" section, and by your rationale you should have removed the edit in its entirety rather than hijack the edit to distract from the central findings, as another editor previously did. I sense that the actual rationale for these hijackings is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My edit adds material which is directly related to the dossier: the FBI included information from the dossier and a page-length explanation of Steele's motives. This is information directly related to the dossier being a "subject of the Nunes memo". Your edit is the one that distracts from the article's subject. FallingGravity 18:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your continuing shifting rationale is duly noted soibangla (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My main argument is that the sentence fragments are off-topic, but there's also a case to be made that it's POV by presenting only one side of the issue in vague terms. So far you haven't addressed any of my key arguments. FallingGravity 02:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In reality, it is abundantly evident that you are injecting POV by completely removing the central findings that key aspects of the memo were false or misleading. soibangla (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've asked you before to clarify what these "central findings" or "key assertions" are, and then even you admitted they were mostly off-topic for this article. I rest my case. FallingGravity 19:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did nothing of the kind. The key findings should be touched upon in this article. My edit does that, yours does not. soibangla (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support revert of POV edit, per others.Casprings (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support revert. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support revert or rewrite of 's off-topic edit, as none of the concerns I raised have been directly addressed. FallingGravity 18:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is the subject of this thread left out? That's what's most relevant. What about including both, as I tried here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

After nine days and 99 talk page watchers who visited recent edits, there is now a 3 to 1 consensus to revert the edit. Shall we proceed? soibangla (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * soibangla, I agree. We've been very patient. I had hoped that FallingGravity would self-revert, but it hasn't happened, so it should be done. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I initially applied a change to put facts first and opinion second. without adding any content. Then noted that there are opinions in support of the Nunes memo as well as against it, and that should be reflected in the text. Nobody has proposed a sentence that would take those diverging opinions into account. — JFG talk 11:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While I did note some differing opinions, I think these opinion are off-topic for this article. The article's title is "Trump–Russia dossier", not "Nunes memo" or "Carter Page FISA warrant". We should focus on the dossier, not a partisan debate over the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the Nunes memo. FallingGravity 15:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, they are not opinions, they are the key findings, and you'd prefer to downplay/bury them because they show that a key document designed to discredit the FBI/Mueller investigation was shown to be false in key respects, so you are attempting to inject your partisan POV into the article, while asserting that others are. Moreover, "Subject of the Nunes memo" is a major section of the article, so the key findings are most definitely on-topic. soibangla (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In the New York Times, there's a professed blur between news analysis and opinions. That doesn't mean it can't be included, just we need to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. FallingGravity 08:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the original sentence is best. It mostly serves to summarize the key conclusion of that source (that key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading and that this corroborates the Democratic rebuttal); summarizing this point clearly and concisely is paramount.  We cover the fact that Trump continues to dispute this further down, but we have to follow the sources in characterizing and covering that position - trying to cram everything into that one sentence is silly when the main point is extremely clear and supported by numerous sources.  The sentence summarizes this point from the relevant source:  The government released the court documents in which the F.B.I. made its case for conducting the surveillance — records that plainly demonstrated that key elements of Republicans’ claims about the bureau’s actions were misleading or false.  I feel that trying to cram other things into it is a bit WP:SYNTH-y, on top of everything else, since in the NYT that statement is flatly unqualified.  --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not vote. You can't just dismiss the fact, which has been said several times, that the cited sources are opinion sources and there are opposing views. Stating opinions as facts is not NPOV. Politrukki (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In principle you're right, but when the opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the weight it deserves, in this case no mention at all. Framing it as mere opinion would poison the well and serve to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinion which can be ignored, and frame debunked conspiracy theories as factual. Stating debunked conspiracy theories as facts is not NPOV.
 * I suspect that myself and others would be willing to entertain good changes. Do you have a better way to phrase it, while keeping the gist of the content and facts, that would meet your concerns? Improvement is always welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose revert -- This edit as clearly the User:JFG version is superior in clarity by not jumbling the sources and chronology.  The Justice release contains the FBI content, inserting a statement in the middle of that which did not come from Justice is improper attribution and a confused sequence.  First thing first, then any comment.  And this commentary should be stated as commentary rather than fact and attributed by WP:NEWSORG and since it is a POV judgement not universally espoused.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * p.s. I'm not favorably inclined to the thread title "Facts: "key assertions made in the Nunes memo were false or misleading, corroborating the rebuttal made by Democrats"" - since this is an opinion not fact, and is logically impossible as phrased -- the claim that a prior item corroborated something that did not yet exist is not possible. The rebuttal is based on the Nunes, it cannot also be proven by the same item -- that's circular logic taken thru a TARDIS.  While I have no doubt that key assertions in both partisan documents were misleading and politically motivated, that seems simply called a partisan position or 'spin'.  Don't exaggerate or falsely state the commentary, just convey the item accurately and in due WEIGHT.   I am feeling the count of !VOTES both inappropriate and incorrect -- and really feel even more than FallingGravity that this bit of the section -- and the preceeding 80% of the section gossipy quotefarms -- is just details belonging perhaps to the Nunes article but OFFTOPIC for this article.  Markbassett (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As FallingGravity correctly pointed out, the cited sources are (1) a news analysis in NYT and (2) a blog post in Lawfare blog by David Kris. News analysis sources are primary sources that may be used as attributed statements by the author, but analysis cannot be stated as a fact if there are significant opposing views. Lawfare is not a news organisation, hence it does not pass as a WP:NEWSBLOG, but perhaps it would be possible to treat Kris as an expert and include some properly attributed (again, with in-text attribution) opinions. NYT reporter Charlie Savage also wrote a news article that focuses on Republican and Democratic claims instead of spoon-feeding Savage's opinions.
 * Former US Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy writes that the FISA application confirms that "the Steele dossier, an unverified Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation", adding "The FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele's work. Nor did the FBI and Justice Department inform the court that Steele's allegations had never been verified."
 * Alan Dershowitz said the FISA application supports arguments of "each side", adding that both Republicans and Democrats have overstated the significance of the footnote.
 * NPR and The Wall Street Journal emphasised that there is a partisan battle over FISA application and the released document did not bring much new info (or partisans have chosen to ignore new info). Both sources mention some key allegations and attribute them (and the rebuttals) to Republicans and Democrats.
 * NPR confirmed at least two allegations made in Nunes memo:
 * WSJ (news division, not opinion) writes:
 * WSJ does not explicitly say whether "at least in part" or "fully disclose" is true or false, but it seems to me that the NPR source and other sources show that the claims have been confirmed. Fox News has confirmed that the dossier played significant role in the application: "The documents show that the Steele Dossier ... was a major component of the 2016 surveillance warrant."
 * One of the key assertion in the Nunes memo was that Andrew McCabe's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee said that without the dossier there would not have been surveillance. The released document does not touch McCabe's testimony and neither did the Democrats' rebuttal.
 * Another key claim is Bruce Ohr's role. Democrats have said that Republicans mischaracterised Ohr's role. The new release did not bring any new information because Ohr's testimony is not in the FISA application. And yet another key assertion in the memo is that George Papadopoulos was a key factor in sparking the Russia probe, which has not been disproven.
 * TLDR: This edit is obviously POV. I'm not sure yet what we should say, but presenting opinions as facts is a non-starter. A vague reference to "key assertions" in our in article without explaining what that does actually means does not help the reader much. Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another key claim is Bruce Ohr's role. Democrats have said that Republicans mischaracterised Ohr's role. The new release did not bring any new information because Ohr's testimony is not in the FISA application. And yet another key assertion in the memo is that George Papadopoulos was a key factor in sparking the Russia probe, which has not been disproven.
 * TLDR: This edit is obviously POV. I'm not sure yet what we should say, but presenting opinions as facts is a non-starter. A vague reference to "key assertions" in our in article without explaining what that does actually means does not help the reader much. Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Signs of Trump-Putin collaboration, starting years before the campaign?
Signs of Trump-Putin collaboration, starting years before the campaign?


 * "Of all the allegations contained in the “Steele dossier,” the urtext of President Trump’s possible ties to Russia, one has long stood out as the most compromising, because it would be evidence of a political and business relationship between Trump and Russia that predated his campaign for the White House."

Interesting article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * User:BullRangifer ??? Not seeing a point for this article.  WP:TALK this space is for discussing edits to the article, not for recommending some other book.  A side remark in review of a book unrelated to the article is not suitable for an edit to this article anyway, but I will note there seems bad syntax/logic inherent in this quote saying an allegation is also evidence for itself.  And that somehow business with Russia existing which was publicly known is somehow in need of evidence that it existed ?   Not seeing any sense in this fragment, really.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I totally understand all that you're saying, so I'll explain some of the possible reasons from RS showing why this might be relevant here. It's about far more than just "business with Russia existing", but about a long history leading up to the current Russian interference.
 * As editors, we all have various POV and RS we read, so I don't expect everyone to see value in this source. Some may be able to use it, while others may not. So let's start by AGF that this is proffered, in good faith, as a possible source.
 * The idea that anything before about 2015, when Trump's presidential campaign officially started, is not fair game for this article, is held by some editors. Other editors believe that any connections which might have led up to, and contributed to, possible Russian interference/influence is also fair game. Any form of cultivation which leads to later cooperation/collusion/conspiracy has to start somewhere, and, quite obviously, that can sometimes start decades earlier, and it may be one-sided for a long time. Cultivation of an asset is usually done to an unwitting target. Trump's greed, narcissism, and susceptibility to being manipulated with just a few words of praise, are well-known parts of his character, and several authors, biographers, and his ghostwriters, have described this in painful detail, ergo, he's a "cheap date" who will offer much in return for nothing more than flattery. The Russian KGB would obviously seek to exploit these character flaws.
 * Several authors have presented evidence (including documented contacts and Trump statements from the time) and theories which posit that the Russians were already interested in Trump as far back as 1984. They were interested for several reasons:
 * Firstly, because he was a wealthy American, making anti-American/pro-Russian statements, who was willing to try to deal with America's arch enemy during the cold war, a time when Russians weren't normally allowed to travel out of Russia, and Americans usually had difficulty getting in, except under close supervision by the KGB, whether they knew it or not. Even American exchange students and ordinary tourists were accompanied by "guides", who were poorly disguised KGB people. Business dealings by Americans with Russia were generally seen as treasonous, or at least very risky and unwise. Note that the question Steele was supposed to investigate and answer was this: "Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?" This is true today.
 * Secondly, because back in the early 1980s, Trump was openly talking about seeking the presidency, and the Russians knew this. That made him even more of a target for observation, cultivation, and collection of incriminating evidence, in case it might come in handy at some later, unspecified, time.
 * Thirdly, because Trump was so horrible a businessman, so unpopular in New York and the business world, and so untrustworthy no American banks would loan him money, he was forced to seek funding elsewhere, firstly with Italian mafia types, and then the Russian mob, the latter being much more sophisticated in illegal financial dealings. His financing was largely from laundered money, selling his properties to Russian mobsters, and later to Russian oligarchs. Russian crime rackets (which got busted) were operating right in Trump Tower, and his associates were known criminals. Even his language reflects this close association for so many years. He picked up their habitual language, and currently uses it in his tweets and attacks. Without acting, he'd fit in fine as a character in The Godfather.
 * Fourthly, he got loans from mobsters and oligarchs, and is alleged to have served as a conduit for their money laundering efforts. He was/is deeply in debt to them, and is alleged to have used bribery in Russia, East Block countries, China, and other countries.
 * Fifthly, he is alleged to have continued to live his well-known playboy life (even bragging about it) in Russia, not just in the USA. This allegedly means the Russians have lots of incriminating tapes of debauched sex parties, including what has been described as "perverse" activities on his part. I have no idea if it's true, but that's what RS say, and since he bragged about Russian women, it's not hard to believe. Comey didn't believe the pee tape allegation at first, but after talking with Trump, who twice told unnecessary and easily disproven lies about it, Comey came to believe it might be true.
 * The dossier alleges that Putin's possession of compromising/embarrassing information isn't just an idle threat, but was a threat which was activated during the presidential campaign, and Trump was informed of it. His campaign (and obviously he would know) was informed that this compromising information could be released, but, as long as they continued to cooperate with Russia, it would be withheld. The threat is portrayed as a very active one, even today, IOW, at any time Trump ceases to follow orders, tapes may appear.
 * His words and actions at Helsinki caused many RS to openly speculate that he was acting like a scared and compromised man who was being controlled and manipulated. Some of those who said as much were top intelligence officials, who know a lot more classified information about these things than we are allowed to know.
 * All of these things combine to serve as possible elements in Trump's alleged cultivation as an asset, and susceptibility to being blackmailed, things that are described in RS as part of an unbroken line of interference/influence that ultimately affected (and effected) and led to the proven, successful, Russian interference in the election, and supposedly still affect and control Trump's actions.
 * Therefore this information is very relevant as a prehistory to what's described in this article. We should include information going back to the early 1980s.
 * You asked, so I have now explained why I provided this newer RS as one more possible source about these matters. That's one of the purposes for this talk page. We share sources we think might be useful, and other editors can fine comb them and pick out relevant content for use in the article. You are welcome to do the same with RS you may find. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All somewhat interesting, but has no relevance at all to this article which is about the dossier. Maybe, depending on what happens over the next few years, someday, at some other article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case may be, we should at least include information from about 2011, the time, according to Steele's timeline, when the Russia's were "cultivating and supporting" Trump. This was a year before Obama's re-election as president and a time when Trump was not only promoting the birther conspiracy theory, but actively seeking to run for Obama's office himself. The timeline of the dossier itself justifies including such information. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the language of the article worth reporting. That an author "argues" & "theorizes" something is irrelevant. If there's something more concrete within the book, then I'd say add it. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How about this: show us some language - what you are proposing to add to the article and where. Then we can talk about it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If it's just that 40 years ago President Trump's real estate company selling condos to everyone included a few Russians, then probably not for this article.  If it's about the dossier - the contracting, the content, or the consequences -- then it would not be WP:OFFTOPIC, so maybe -- it would still have to pass WP:UNDUE.  Just another entertaining book of speculation left or right won't do for encyclopedic content.  Should probably just go into the reading section list ... I'll add it and one or two others.        Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something historians will pontificate about at some future point. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting tidbit from the director of the new documentary "Active Measures": "But connecting the dots between a rogue’s gallery of Russian oligarchs, various money laundering schemes disguised as luxury condominiums,... When we started, we knew 2004 was a very important year for us, both on the Putin side and the Trump side. But as we kept researching, the date kept going farther back, so we decided to start with the first clear act of illegality in 1984," says Bryan, referring to the sale of five Trump Tower condos to Russian mobster David Bogdan." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Publicly unverified but not disproven."
"The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been publicly verified while many others remain publicly unverified but not disproven." I noticed that on wikipedia, there appears to be essentially no evidence that any false information or impression has ever been shared or spread about Donald Trump. The allegations about "golden showers," Russian collusion with no actionable evidence whatsoever, 98% likelihood of Hillary Clinton victory, retracted CNN stories and other things are simply not mentioned at all on the relevant articles or, as I see here, called "publicly unverified but not disproven," which is a perfect phrase that you could use to label the accusations that the CIA killed John F. Kennedy, that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (and many worse stories spread about him). The effect of treating information this way, matter-of-factly reporting anything negative about a disliked figure and pretending any false allegations against them or positive things they've done simply don't exist or are just "unverified", does not actually discredit the person, it discredits the source of the information. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum, do you have an edit request?Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be an objective reference source, and the talk sections are supposed to be discussing proper tone, standards and presentation of information. Considering that YOU have been censured on your own page for inappropriate comments and edits of other people's talk pages, I suggest you refrain from trying to act as though you understand or represent wikipedia's intentions. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV WP:LIBEL WP:VERIFY All of which are violated here. Please review these pages, Slatersteven, because you don't seem capable of editing material to this standard. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As we do not accuse anyone or any action, we quote RS who do so no libel violation has taken place. Also all material here is sources to RS, so it does not fail verify. All you have left is NPOV, but you are yet to actually state how we should change this article to address your concerns.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to this because Slatersteven claimed that I did not state how articles should be changed. It's inappropriate to claim someone didn't answer something and then try to close the discussion. Wikipedia's policy is to delete libelous material, not to just publish anything libelous as long as it can be referenced to someone else. Furthermore, verification is a reference to a reliable source. The DNC in a presidential campaign is not a reliable source. Regarding non-neutral POV, I repeatedly give examples of it, such as the golden shower reference which as I said repeatedly, should NOT be reported here since it is a libelous claim made without evidence by a researcher funded by the DNC in a presidential campaign. On top of that, in the handful of other times I've pointed this out, such as stating that either both the CNN and Fox pages should have dedicated criticism sections on the page, or neither should. I make specific suggestions when I do reply. Don't claim I didn't say that and then try to block the conversation so I can't point out that I did and repeat it. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Valid point, the DNC would not be an RS for facts, so what do WE source to the DNC?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)?
 * No it is Wikipedias policy to not claim it is true. If multiple RS have said something we can repeat it, as long as we do not claim it is factually correct. This is why I say you have not suggested an edit. You are objecting to us saying something WE do not say. As such we cannot address your concerns as we have not said what you claim we say. Moroever we cannot fail to include accusations that RS have deemed noteworthy just because they are salacious. What we must do (and we do do) is not to state them as facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We follow the instructions at WP:PUBLICFIGURE very closely. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely you must be joking? The opening post shows that the IP editor quoted text from our article. The erroneous content "but not disproven" was inserted to the article in April. You said "all material here is sources to RS, so it does not fail verify". Would you kindly explain how the cited source verifies "not disproven"? Politrukki (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, that is a vague bit. By the thread title, I think he's objecting largely to the phrasing 'unverified but not disproven' lead line in the Allegations section which has no cite and perhaps went too far with the fillip "but not disproven".   This is well below the long-standing LEAD of simply 'have not been verified' e.g here said "The dossier primarily discusses possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  The media and the intelligence community have stressed that most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified."    The LEAD has a lower line "Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others remain unverified" which also seems to go too far with "allegations" since  the Washington Post (shown) cite is using the wording of information rather than allegations "Officials have said some of the information it contains has been corroborated, but other parts — including the most salacious claims about Trump's behavior — remain unverified."      In any case, the Allegations lead line is rather vague and lacks WP:V so .... what to do ?  Keep, replace with alternative that is supportable, or just delete it ?   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well you start with understanding current consensus: See: Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 13, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_6#RFC_on_lead , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_5#RfC_about_use_of_unverified Casprings (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Casprings And none of those mention "but not disproven", which seems to have not been a consensus discussion before now and still is without WP:V.  You should instead look at part of the archives Parts of dossier proven false?   Simplified summary seems to be that all the parts one cares about are unverified, though there are several side info nits that have been disproven and the same in side info nits proven.   Which perhaps plays more with the other line where changing the cite wording of  "information" (e.g.side nits) into the wording "allegations" (i.e. assertion of misconduct) seems inappropriate.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have made a number of additions from good RS to shore up this content, including Shep Smith's confirmation that "None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been disproven." Also James Clapper's similar statement. Also John Brennan's well-informed assertion that Trump's denials of collusion are "hogwash": "The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets."

While the dossier itself never uses the word "collusion", it does allege "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." The intelligence community has long been convinced that this is the case, and the statements and actions of Trump and the Trump campaign have done nothing to dispel that impression. On the contrary, their constant lying about secret meetings seems to confirm that the conspiracy is ongoing right now, with a very active cover-up attempt taking place. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear BullRangifer, please tone down your opinion, it detracts from your arguments. — JFG talk 17:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All pretty solidly based on what RS confirm or allege, IOW existing content in some of our articles. That's how I form my opinions. If you consider it to be just my opinion, then that is problematic. (I guess "done nothing to dispel" would be considered opinion if one only listened to Fox News. For those using only RS it's solid fact.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your last sentence: "seems to confirm that the conspiracy is ongoing right now, with a very active cover-up attempt". The ultimate source will be Mueller's report, when that comes out. In the meantime, an "ongoing conspiracy" is merely opinion. — JFG talk 20:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh! Yes, the actual proof (we have lots of circumstantial evidence now) will come then, even though well-informed people like Brennan already dare call it conspiracy. If Trump succeeds in blocking the investigation (many acts collectively considered a "cover-up"), and he is definitely trying to sabotage it, we may not learn those facts. Innocent people don't act this way. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not your soapbox. You can't just make inflammatory allegations ("long been convinced that this is the case", "their constant lying about secret meetings seems to confirm...", "Innocent people don't act this way.") without citing reliable sources. And you know very well that the reliable sources say – that's what matters – that the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been (publicly) proven. You need to provide reliable sources or retract your statements and then stop posting your personal opinions here if they are not directly related to improving the article.
 * Did you just cite one Fox host's opinion as fact in the article? After someone reminded us of a talk page discussion that clearly shows that some of allegations in the dossier are false or erroneous, according to reliable sources? You can't dismiss reliable sources that don't align with certain POV. You need to provide very convincing counter-evidence to prove that reliable sources that have noted falsehoods or errors – particularly when same sources are cited in this article for different claims – are wrong. Politrukki (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i know, 'not a forum.' This is easily the most slanted and disgraceful wikipedia article I've ever seen. Good to know you're not above wallowing in trash mods. I guarantee you, people from all over read this article and will never trust wikipedia again. Have fun playing 'publicly unverified, but not disproven.' Not an OBVIOUS LOGICAL FALLACY:  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence  You people are sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:702:8002:448:84F1:EF7:2450:66EB (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Enjoy! soibangla (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Challenged text from sources
You reverted text that comes straight from the source, about the first meeting between Ohr and Strzok in November. Please restore it for clarity: without this, readers don't know when to count "four months" from "at that time", and the timeline given in the source is crystal clear. I don't mind your other changes, although the bit about Steele being "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected" would deserve to be mentioned somewhere (can't see why you object to placing it here, but feel free to place it somewhere else). — JFG talk 06:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it, it seems to say that Ohr speaks with officials at the FBI, not any none individual.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does the Strzok thing even have to be in there? It's barely mentioned. It's a strange thing to cherry pick out of the source.  Volunteer Marek   15:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it relevant in this article? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal article on Ohr's testimony
Highlights from Wall Street Journal article What Bruce Ohr Told Congress by Kimberley Strassel, Aug. 30, 2018 Phmoreno (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ohr verbally told the FBI that his source had a credibility problem and informed them of Steele's "leanings and motives."
 * Ohr told the FBI his wife Nellie was working for Fusion GPS.
 * Ohr's wife contributed to the dossier.
 * In a note about a Sept. 2016 meeting with Steele, Ohr stated that Steele “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
 * Steele was terminated as an FBI source in Oct. 2016 for talking to the media. Ohr then began serving as a "back channel".
 * FBI personnel Ohr communicated with regarding the dossier included (but were not limited to) Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page. All were aware of his role and his conflict of interest.


 * Your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is basically the same as this section at the Bruce Ohr talk page, so now we have duplication of discussion. Please check it out. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a news article. The source is an opinion piece by a member of the WSJ editorial board. Not RS for facts. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also not sure it should be in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article contains opinion, but these points are stated as facts.Phmoreno (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They are still only opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Kim Strassel is never, ever a RS. soibangla (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strassel's opinion is that Bruce Ohr deserves the attention that Trump has given him based on the facts from his testimony she presented. And Soibangla, on one made you the RS police.Phmoreno (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So how about finding another source that states the same facts?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Period. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not know her or have much interest in this conversation at all but I would recommend not calling a BLP a compulsive liar without sources even on a talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So I take it that no, no other RS has made these claims, thus they are not facts, just this persons opinions of what the fact are.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I can’t read the WSJ article, but it’s important to note that Ohr testified behind closed doors - and with only Republicans in the room. So any information about what he said is according to Republican committee members, and needs to be credited as such in anything we put in the article. Here’s a summary from a neutral news source of what three of them (Gaetz, Meadows, and Issa - three of the most rabidly partisan Republicans in Congress) told reporters. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Fired for leaking to press
Additional source for Steele fired for leaking to press. "“Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.” HPSCI memo" Phmoreno (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Nunes memo has been discredited in a number of ways. The fact the FBI severed ties with Steele for talking to the press does not mean that his information was therefore considered unreliable. soibangla (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "In an Oct. 30, 2016 Mother Jones article written by David Corn, Steele leaked his involvement with the FBI. “Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September .."


 * Which still does not support the notion that his information was considered unreliable. soibangla (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The timing matters. Steele began speaking to the press on background in September 2016, and allowed Corn to publish the allegations in late October. That’s when the FBI stopped working with him. That’s already in our articles, well sourced. That has nothing to do with what they thought of him prior to October. Prior to that they accepted his information, presumably with his own caveat that he regarded it as 70-90% reliable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC) P.S. And please note that they broke off contact with him because he was blabbing, giving secret information to the press - not because they had any doubts about the information he had given them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Does it state anywhere in this article that Steele was terminated as a source? And from what I understand of FBI guidelines, Steele being terminated as a source makes him unreliable and prohibits anything from him being used.  That is the significance of Bruce Ohr being used as a backchannel.Phmoreno (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "From what [you] understand of FBI guidelines" is not a reliable source. That would be original synthesis unless you have a source specifically stating that the FBI considered Steele's material entirely unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comes from sources and not SYN."'But now we discover the FBI continued to go to this discredited informant in its investigation after the firing—by funneling his information via a Justice Department cutout. The FBI has an entire manual governing the use of confidential sources, with elaborate rules on validations, standards and documentation. Mr. Steele failed these standards. The FBI then evaded its own program to get at his info anyway."
 * Other commentators on Fox had similar comments.Phmoreno (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Key words being commentators on Fox. You have, at best, several partisan opinion sources giving their opinion about what the FBI did or didn't do. Whether or not those opinions should be included, they cannot be used to support factual statements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fox usually has people familiar with the subject matter, like former high level people FBI officials who would know what they are talking about.Phmoreno (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter. They are still commentators giving their opinion about something. They aren't stating facts. Do you not understand the difference between an opinion column/program and a factual news story? I cannot use a commentary by Rachel Maddow to say in Wikipedia, as a fact, "Donald Trump is unfit for office." Nor may you use a commentary by Kimberley Strassel to say in Wikipedia, as a fact, "Steele being terminated as a source makes him unreliable and prohibits anything from him being used." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is one of the big objections to Fox News as a source. They don't have a firm line between reporting and opinions, as is the case on normal and real news channels. There is obvious which is which. At Fox it's all jumbled together, so their usual listeners don't understand the proper way this should be done. They simply don't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, just as Trump doesn't realize (or doesn't care) that what he believes to be true is often totally divorced from reality. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

FBI contacts for Ohr
Additional source for FBI personnel Bruce Ohr was in contact with regarding dossier Phmoreno (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How do these back up your suggested edit exaclty?Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * So far I provided an additional source for two statements from my reverted edit: Steele was terminated for leaking to the media, FBI personnel he passed information were named.Phmoreno (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been explained to you that your first source is not RS. Your second (iffy if lone) source for Steele's "termination" is lacking some context. From the original source in full:


 * I'm not sure where your other claim: "FBI personnel he passed information were named" comes from or why it matters. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So Ohr's supposed offense is that he met with someone he knew and subsequently informed his superiors and appropriate officials of what that person told him? No wonder the NYT called this a "conspiracy theory." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if they were breaking FBI guidelines as sources claim, that pretty much sounds like a conspiracy to me. Also, Ohr testified that he disclosed his wife's role to select FBI personnel, but he was demoted once for not properly disclosing that on the paperwork he signed regarding conflicts of interest that gets read by the inspector general. Phmoreno (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ...that pretty much sounds like a conspiracy to me. Ahh, it sounds like a conspiracy to you. Stop the presses. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

McCain passed dossier to Comey
"Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey."

Phmoreno, in light of your seeming objections to Ohr passing the same information to people in the FBI, do you think that McCain's actions were questionable? What would be the proper thing to do if YOU came into possession of strong allegations (from a normally very reliable source) of treasonous crimes, a literal conspiracy with the most powerful enemy of America, being committed by a presidential candidate? What's the patriotic thing to do? Wouldn't it be the right thing to pass it on to those with the skills to investigate it and determine whether it was true, false, or somewhere in between? Why is that considered some form of crime by right-wingers and Trump supporters? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Why Townhall is not a RS
This article about the dossier demonstrates why Townhall isn't a RS. It gets just about everything wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a matter for WP:RSN. PackMecEng (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they'd have fun with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sergei Millian
We don't mention Sergei Millian (Sergei Kukut) at all, and yet he has been identified as the Dossier's Source D (and E), and many RS have discussed him and his proven and unproven roles in the Trump-Russia affairs and dossier (as Source D/E). Articles which mention him by name in connection with the dossier (after the release of the dossier) and/or just as Source D/E (both before and after release of the dossier) are fair game in this article.

RS reveal that his Trumpian tendency to hyperbole and self-promotion have rendered him an unwitting "loose lips" witness, similar to Papadopoulos, Giuliani, etc. Such people are very useful witnesses, much to Trump's chagrin. Later, when their revealings are seen as embarrassing, they try to deny, downplay, and even scrub the information, but history usually reveals they have exposed facts that should have been kept hidden, at least from the viewpoint of the Trump administration. They have thus placed themselves firmly in the center of Mueller's net for potential witnesses.

There is likely enough for an article about him, so I'm including a few articles from before release of the dossier.


 * Before release of dossier:


 * 2013 This is an archived version of content later scrubbed by Millian. It is mentioned in RS, so is interesting, but not very useful here.


 * September 8, 2016


 * November 1, 2016


 * After release of dossier:


 * January 19, 2017


 * January 24, 2017


 * January 30, 2017


 * March 29, 2017


 * November 17, 2017


 * January 19, 2018


 * February 20, 2018


 * April 15, 2018


 * August 28, 2018


 * September 8, 2018


 * Not a RS for Wikipedia, but accurate and useful for research, linking to many RS:


 * Sergei Millian, The Moscow Project

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Questions about edit
How's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * On a seperate note are we now just straight up posting press released now? The first one is pretty bad since the NYT is not making that claim as written in our article. Since the NYT clearly says they are spokesperson and not in their own voice. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To make sure I understand you, are you questioning the attribution? BTW, thanks for working with me on this. We need to get it right, which is why it's good to have other eyes. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the wording to remove any ambiguity. See above. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The first part was caught up in a reworking of related content that was spread around. It's now collected into its own subsection, so the wording had to be tweaked. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The first one seems like an improvement. Though I am looking over the whole section and it seems like a so what. Does the "What the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Steele knew" section need to exist? PackMecEng (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If there wasn't a whole series of Trump-created (thus extremely notable, high-profile, and carrying huge weight) conspiracy theories out there designed to make the creation of the dossier look like some deceptive attempt to create false stories to undermine Trump and make excuses for Hillary's loss, it would indeed be an insignificant matter, but those conspiracy theories are a daily drum beat showing the subject is important and warranting that we document all we can about how this was created, including the players and what they knew. It is Trump who is to blame for the need to document this. His daily attacks give it more weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is all well and good, but what does that have to do with this article or quoting spokesmen for the opposition? PackMecEng (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the content was old, and is just moved into the same section since it's on the same topic. It was spread around in a rather haphazard manner. Now it makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That does not address what I said. PackMecEng (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

False statement about payment for Steele's work
Here is what we had, with the part I added (underlined):

Instead of following WP:PRESERVE, a policy here, PackMecEng removed my properly sourced addition with this edit summary: "Unsupported by source. It mentions Trump said millions but does not debunk that claim."

NPOV requires that we must not present opinions as facts. When opinions are clearly and grossly false, we usually label them as such.

What to do? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You cited the Washington Post for saying "Trump has falsely claimed that Steele was paid "millions of dollars" for his work.". That is not what the source says, it mentions the tweet Trump made and that is it. You are doing synth if you are using previous information from this article to draw a conclusion of your own. Also if you want to get technical on NPOV and opinions as facts, perhaps you do not want to cite an opinion article as facts which is what you did here since the washpost article is an opinion article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, looking at the source again, it actually says worse, so how about this:


 * Is that acceptable? There is no SYNTH, OR, or opinions. These are straight facts from the article. (Opinion articles do contain facts. ) Maybe the wording can be improved, but let's keep the essence from the source. Trump keeps repeating this falsehood in one form or other, and such a falsehood is notable. It's a fact that Trump has never provided any evidence for his claim since it's obviously false. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As text it works, but what is its relevance?Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It sets the record straight. Very notable untruths are being spoken, and RS note it. We document that, and it can be done with very few words. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to set the record straight... We report what RS say on a subject and what is notable about it. Also opinion articles are not RS for facts, especially when not attributed to the author. They are certainly reliable for the authors opinions, at least if the authors opinions are worth anything. But it does come back to what weight does this have and what value does it add to the article? PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Version 3
But we don't hesitate to set the record straight when RS do it. Facts in opinion articles are completely fair game. If there is any opinion, that can be attributed, so let's try it again, with attribution. In this case multiple journalists have pointed out that Trump's claim is unsubstantiated, without evidence, etc. That can be summarized.

It turns out that we have not covered the controversy surrounding the somewhat forced revealing of the price. While it was publicly known that Fusion GPS had been paid to produce the dossier, the amount was unknown, but that didn't prevent Trump from spouting off unsubstantiated claims. Since one of Trump's most notable claims (a Tweet...surprise!) was made before the public revealing of what Fusion GPS was paid, I'm writing this in chronological order. Trump made that Tweet, and three days later Fusion GPS responded:

How's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the NYT notes that they did pay the 12.4 million dollars to Perkins Coie to represent the Clinton campaign and the DNC, which in tern they funded the dossier. So stating what Coie paid is misleading. Your Washington Post opinion article does not support the sentence you attached it to since it does not mention or dispute Trump's claim for 12 million. Your last two sources Newsweek and MSN predate the 12.4 million dollar payment so yes at the time there was not evidence but that is no longer the case as shown by the NYT article. So basically according to current RS it is wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * (1) It's not misleading. It's also OR and SYNTH for you to connect two sources in that way as they are for totally different amounts and purposes, and one doesn't even mention the dossier or amount paid for it. The sources I use are after-the-fact. They knew about that much larger amount, and they clearly identify how Trump's statement is directly referring to the actual payment for the dossier, not for the much larger payment for all the services performed by Coie Perkins for both the DNC and the Clinton campaign during the many months of the whole election cycle.
 * The payment for the dossier was a much smaller amount, and the leaders in the DNC and Clinton campaign didn't even know that a dossier was being prepared. All they knew was that some of the money was being used for opposition research, which is standard practice for all political campaigns.
 * It was set up as a COI-proof legal "firewall" to prevent anything wrong or illegal from happening. They didn't cut corners. The successive links in the chain were separated:
 * The DNC and Clinton campaign knew that Perkins Coie was doing some sort of opposition research, but not about who was contracted or doing the work;
 * Perkins Coie knew about the contract with Fusion GPS, but not about Orbis and Steele, who was actually doing the work;
 * Fusion GPS knew about Orbis and Steele, where the actual research and development of the dossier was happening;
 * Steele didn't know the identities of the ultimate clients;
 * Orbis and Steele regularly sent the finished memos back to Fusion GPS;
 * Fusion GPS then verbally briefed (no paper) Elias from Perkins Coie, but he didn't deem it good enough or reliable enough (it was still unsubstantiated) to be useful, so didn't tell the DNC or Clinton campaign's leaders about the results. They all found out after the dossier was released, IOW long after the election and useless as opposition research. Only the Mother Jones article gave them a clue that something was in the works, but they didn't find out the details until later. They maintained their ethical obligations by not misusing unsubstantiated accusations during the campaign, something which Trump would have done (and did do).
 * That explains why the DNC and Hillary didn't use the information in the dossier to any advantage during the campaign. It was pretty useless to them, so it's good they didn't pay anymore than they did for it. Fortunately for American security and history, the details can be used to determine to what degree the Trump campaign may have stolen the election through illegal collusion with Russians. The large number of connections and secret meetings between Trump's people and Russians, and all the indictments and convictions, indicate things were not as they should be. Some of those indictments are related to Russia and collusion. While there is abundant "evidence" of collusion (and they all lied repeatedly about it, showing "consciousness of guilt"), that's not the same as "proof". Time will tell. The investigation must end with a proper legal conclusion, and preferably trial. As with Capone, Trump may never be proven guilty of illegal conspiracy, but he is in legal jeopardy for possible financial crimes and corruption.


 * (2) ✅ We can easily remove the WaPo (ref 3) from that spot. The other sources still serve the purpose just fine.
 * (3) The last two sources postdate it. Your NYT source is from 10/24/2017, and they are from 11/2/2017, so they knew about that much larger amount and were factoring it into their comments. They take Trump at his word, and it would be wrong for us to use OR and SYNTH to say they are wrong. We document what RS say.
 * BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Number two is done. I removed that ref from that spot. Good catch. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It more looks like the sources are giving conflicting information here. While both are verifiable since they conflict that raises an interesting issue. I would like to see more people weight in on this. PackMecEng (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Conflicting? Say more. Help me see it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well one source says how much was spent and matches what Trump says, the other cites a different number and says Trump is wrong. So we have two sources saying conflicting things about the same information. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Two sources"... Which ones? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pick any of the sources mentioned above. PackMecEng (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are five to choose from. I need specifics so I can compare. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe in you I am confident you can figure it out. PackMecEng (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's kind of hard to prove a negative, in case your claim is not based on fact. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'll be happy to compare and will gladly fix things if I'm wrong. So which two sources are you talking about? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CIR But okay it is the NYT piece that mentions that 12 million as mentioned above and the Reuters article that says it's bunk. There are several others sources besides Reuters as well, again mentioned above. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Need for parsing
Two points: BTW, in October 2017, Trump also played with other, high, figures ($9 million and $5.7) while speculating about the cost of the dossier (not the whole campaign). We try to cover the facts, and several RS have discussed how he's been deceptive about the price of the dossier. We document it. This is just one more case of his "truthful hyperbole". He likes to exaggerate to make his foes look bad, and facts are irrelevant in that equation.
 * 1) No need to get snarky. AGF. It's not a matter of my ability or competence, but of my unwillingness to do your work. Only you know the context of your own thinking. We can look at the same material and see different patterns, so, since you're making the claim, I need you to explain the pattern/conflict for me. That's a very reasonable request.
 * 2) We've covered this before, but the figures are for different things. $12.4 million was to represent the whole Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. during the 2016 campaign, while only $1.02 million "of that" (and that is OR) was for the opposition research, and only $168,000 of that was for the dossier itself. Apples and oranges. Trump claimed the dossier cost as much as the whole campaign.

Speaking of what these people were paid, Nellie Ohr was only paid $44,000 for her work at Fusion GPS, most of it for The Washington Free Beacon part of the opposition research, not for the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well on the first point, I literally posted the sources and info above here, right above your post asking for sources and more information. So that is on you.

On point two you are mistaken that was not what they paid for all the during the campgain but specifically what they spent on the dossier as pointed out by the NYT source "Perkins Coie was paid $12.4 million to represent the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. during the 2016 campaign, according to filings. The role of the Clinton campaign and the national party in funding the research for the dossier was first reported on Tuesday by The Washington Post." So no OR there they say the campaign and DNC paid 12.4 million for the research on the dossier. What Steele was paid verse what Clinton and the DNC paid is the difference. In this case it does not matter what specific people were paid but what the DNC and Clinton paid overall(which is what the tweet is referring to). So yes 12.4 million was paid for the dossier according to the NYT and the Reuters source you mention is what Fusion paid Steele the 1.02ish million. When Trump said "Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?)", according to the NYT he was correct. So yes again according to RS that is what happened. It ends up either Reuters is wrong or misrepresenting the information, and we would then have conflicting sources. I am of mind to dump Reuters since they are just wrong and given that not a RS in this instance. PackMecEng (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We seem to be going in rings, so we need more eyes. I'm going to ping others who have recently commented on this page: MelanieN, NorthBySouthBaranof, Objective3000, Slatersteven, Soibangla, Galobtter. (Phmoreno is indefinitely blocked.)
 * To make this easier, I'll also give it a "parsing" subheading above.


 * 1) Sorry for any misunderstanding on my part, but at that point (several days ago) we were talking about four sources, which I then replied to and thought that matter was resolved. Then you mentioned two sources. I really wasn't sure which of the original five sources (or four you mentioned in that comment) you were referring to. I didn't know whether you were referring to some new discrepancy or not.
 * 2) I don't understand your parsing of that statement. It very clearly says the $12.4 million was for the whole campaign. That money was paid to Perkins Coie, and they did no opposition research. None at all.
 * You seem to be applying the second sentence in what you posted in green color above to what the first sentence mentions. They are two different subjects:
 * One thing: "Perkins Coie was paid $12.4 million to represent the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. during the 2016 campaign, according to filings. This refers only to the $12.4 million to Perkins Coie, and not the later payment by Perkins Coie (not by DNC or Clinton) to Fusion GPS for the dossier. Only a small amount of that ($1.02 million) ended up being used for opposition research, and an even smaller amount ($168,000) for the dossier.
 * Quite another: The role of the Clinton campaign and the national party in funding the research for the dossier was first reported on Tuesday by The Washington Post." This refers to the $1.02 million and the $168,000. That WaPo article is here, and I don't recall we have used it in this discussion, but it's used in the article. Because of the paywall I can't access it anymore.
 * Reuters is correct and only mentions the payment for the dossier, not the larger payment for the legal work by Perkins Coie. I think you're conflating the two.
 * It's clear that Fusion GPS was paid $1.02 million for opposition research, of which they paid $168,000 to Orbis/Steele for the dossier. The dossier itself only cost them $168,000, nowhere near the $12 million which Trump claimed it cost. Trump does not address what Perkins Coie was paid for their legal representation work for the whole campaign. He only mentions the dossier. Even if one is generous (an assumption not justified by the sources) and allow that the $1.02 million was for the dossier, that is still far from $12.4 million.
 * Trump, as usual, grabs numbers he hears and is imprecise in what he says, since facts don't really matter much to him, only how he can use any numbers available to give his followers an impression which makes him look good and his opposition look bad. None of them even care or try to parse what actually has happened.
 * In summary:


 * BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * is not blocked. PackMecEng (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh! I saw the indef block on their talk page and assumed they were indeffed and have ignored them. Okay, so now they are pinged. Since they have received many warnings, and are thus inches away from a topic ban, they may not wish to contribute here, so it's up to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You also mention that Washington Post said "$1.02 million and the $168,000" was paid. The article makes no mention of that so that is wrong. It looks like you are confusing sources and numbers all over the place getting into synth and OR. PackMecEng (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. I didn't say they "said" that, only that it "refers to" that subject. (I noted I didn't have access, so I don't know what they "said" in the article.) I'm only going by the statement about "funding the research for the dossier", which refers to funds paid to Fusion GPS (for the opposition research and dossier), not to the larger sum paid to Perkins Coie (they did no opposition research).


 * I think we can safely assume that the difference between the $12.4 million and the $1.02 million was used by Perkins Coie for their other duties as the legal representation for the DNC and the Clinton campaign. There are many things that cost money doing such things. There is no evidence that they used all that money for the opposition research and dossier. That only cost, at most, $1.02 million.
 * Regardless, several RS have said Trump was wrong about the amount. That's the real subject here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Who cares what Perkins paid? The question and tweet is what the campaign and the DNC paid. Which is the 12.4 million. Past that, it does not matter at all what anyone but the campaign and the DNC paid. That is what I have been saying all along. I am not sure why you are fighting to put debunked information in the article at this point? Yes you found a source that said he made the statement without evidence... So what? RS tell us what they paid for it and that is what we would report, which is the 12.4 million. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because there is a huge difference. The tweet is only about the dossier, a much smaller amount than stated in the tweet. The Clinton campaign and DNC only paid money to Perkins Coie, and no money directly to Fusion GPS or Orbis/Steele. They didn't even know the dossier was being prepared. Therefore it is only what Perkins Coie paid to Fusion GPS for the dossier that is relevant, and Trump was only talking about the dossier, and by "about", I mean he actually said "dossier", several times in different sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me put this another way that might be more understandable. Say you go to a car dealership and buy a car for $50k, now the dealership paid less than that for the car lets say $30k. Then someone says that you paid $50k for that car, that would not be wrong even though the dealership paid $30k. That is because that person is not saying the dealership paid $50k, but that you paid $50k for the car. Make sense? PackMecEng (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that describes the situation. Maybe, maybe not. It sounds like you're proposing that it's okay to claim that a special $300 radio in the car actually cost $50k because the car cost $50k. That's nonsense. The car cost $50k, but the radio only cost $300, and anyone who claimed the radio cost $50k would rightly be accused of stating a falsehood.

Let's try doing this with the actual figures.
 * 1) DNC and Clinton campaign --> $12.4 million --> Perkins Coie for Legal Counsel  The DNC and Clinton campaign need legal counsel for the presidential campaign, a multifaceted job which entails many types of activities requiring legal assistance. They sign a contract with Perkins Coie to serve as their legal counsel for $12.4 million. Marc Elias does the job. He is the chair of Perkins Coie's Political Law Group, where he is a preeminent counselor in the areas of federal and state campaign finance law. He's done this type of thing before and knows what he's doing, so he creates a legal firewall between his clients and Fusion GPS. Basically the "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing". This creates plausible deniability and avoids conflict of interest polluting the process and rendering evidence unreliable.
 * 2) Perkins Coie --> $1.02 million --> Fusion GPS for Opposition research  As General Counsel, Elias does many things, and one of them is to pay for opposition research. He is approached by Fusion GPS to overtake opposition research they have been working on for The Washington Free Beacon. He thinks it's a good idea, and when the Free Beacon pulls out, Perkins Coie takes over and pays Fusion GPS $1.02 million to continue their opposition research on Trump.
 * 3) Fusion GPS --> $168,000 --> Orbis Business Intelligence for Dossier  Fusion GPS (Simpson) decides to take their existing investigation in a new direction, directly into Russia. Previously Fusion GPS has carried on a journalist-type investigation, only using public sources. Now Simpson wants information from inside Russia, and that requires the skills of a spy and Russia expert, so the investigation takes a turn in another direction, an espionage-type direction. Simpson turns to an old friend, Christopher Steele, a retired spy at Orbis, who is recognized as the top Russia expert. Fusion pays Orbis $168,000 for that job.
 * Each step in this chain is isolated from each other:


 * 1) The DNC and Clinton campaign do not know that Perkins Coie has contracted Fusion GPS.
 * 2) Perkins Coie does not know that Fusion GPS has hired Steele at Orbis.
 * 3) Steele does not know that the ultimate clients are the DNC and Clinton campaign. He only knows a lawyer is involved. They never communicate.

Several RS say that Trump's claims that the dossier cost $12 million are falsehoods, because the dossier only cost, at most, $1.02 million (and actually cost even less, only $168,000). That's what happened.

Just as the radio didn't cost $50k, the dossier didn't cost $12 million. Any claims to the contrary are falsehoods. That's how RS describe them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Trump 'dossier' stuck in New York, didn't trigger Russia investigation, sources say
This has content which should be included in some way:


 * Trump 'dossier' stuck in New York, didn't trigger Russia investigation, sources say

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Clapper and Smith in the lead
Someone recently added the highlighted part to the lead:

I don't think Smith's statement is accurately paraphrased, but in the current form Smith's and Clapper's statements contradict with what other media personalities and reliable sources have said:


 * 1) On October 29, 2017, George Stephanopoulos said "There are some things in that dossier that have been proven untrue. For example, Michael Cohn [sic], according to his passport wasn't in Prague during the summer of 2016." I know that someone now asks "What about the McClatchy report on Cohen?", but that is a step towards original research. Moreover, McClatchy was very careful not to report as a fact that Cohen was in Prague. It only says "two sources familiar with the matter" say Mueller has evidence of such. McClatchy uses speculative wording "Confirmation of the trip would lend credence ... It would also be one of the most significant developments thus far" [emphasis added]. Cohen still maintains that the dossier is false. Also note that Stephanopoulos says "some things" and "for example", not "one thing".
 * 2) On February 26, 2018, Lisa Desjardins said "The Steele dossier, many of our views [sic] may know, because it has sort of some scintillating information alleged against the president. Some of that has been debunked."
 * 3) Numerous sources say the dossier contains falsehoods, usually they don't go into specifics, but some do: "ABC News was able to debunk some references to [Michael Cohen] in the unverified document"

The lead does not even mention when Clapper and Smith said the things they said.

There is related content in Trump–Russia dossier section (this problem originated from someone adding unsourced content "but not disproven" into the article), but let's discuss the lead first. I'll break this discussion into subsections and. Politrukki (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The inclusion without a source is easily fixed by adding the source, which is found in the article. That may even have been fixed. Leads commonly lack sources because the content is sourced in the body of the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The part in the Allegations section has been fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Clapper
James Clapper is asked whether anything in the dossier has been disproven. Clapper's answer is "No some of it hasn't been proven. No, I guess is the shirt [sic] answer to the question. The salacious stuff, absolutely no corroboration of that to my knowledge."

The cited source is a video clip from Laura Ingraham's show and other persons in the video disagree with Clapper, but only Clapper's statement has been picked to the lead.

Here is another part of the discussion:

If the cited source is a reliable source for Clapper's comment, it is also a reliable source for opinions of others. Do we want to add Ingraham's and Russell's responses to the lead and how would that work?

Is the clip (with the transcript of the interview on MSNBC) the only source that can be cited for Clapper's opinion? Politrukki (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Ingraham is NEVER a RS. Period. She's a political hack who cares not for accuracy, and so are her guests. She's a spin machine who is often counterfactual. Does that answer your question? Her show is a typical Fox clip-and-paste job designed to sell the talking points delivered by management, which are the standard Trump/GOP/Putin denial/cover-up "Russiagate is a witch hunt" story line.
 * Which begs the questions: "When is Fox accurate?" and "How can we know?" The only known method to verify whether something on Fox is accurate is to compare it with RS. If it's accurate, it will be found in other RS, without the Fox spin, so it's best to use those sources, and not Fox. Just like with Trump, it is unwise to ever assume they are telling the truth. They can tell the truth, but it's so often the exception that caution is warranted. Be skeptical. (BTW, if you know of a different method to verify whether Fox is accurate, let me know.)
 * I'm ashamed to admit I used that Fox video as the source. I should have known better. Why send readers to the dung heap to dig for the pearl? I should have used the original MSNBC source in context.
 * The solution is to use the proper MSNBC RS, without the Fox spin. That way readers can also check the context if they wish. The Fox source has no accurate context. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have substituted the MSNBC source, which also has the full context of the interview. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Smith
The lead says "according to Clapper and Shepard Smith, none have been disproven". This is misrepresenting what Smith actually said: "None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been disproven." [emphasis added], i.e. Smith is only reporting what Fox News knows. Smith likely does not know much what has been debunked privately. Maybe Fox News has not noticed what others have said about falsehoods in the dossier or they have different idea what "disprove" means.

Why is it relevant enough for the lead to say what Fox News does not know when that is not consistent with what other sources have said (see examples in the main section above)? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the most important aspects in the article. Politrukki (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your point about the full quote... Yes, it's in the reference as a quote, but maybe the qoute should be in the body itself. That would be more accurate. I guess I aimed for brevity in the lead.
 * I really doubt that Fox "has not noticed what others have said about falsehoods in the dossier or they have different idea what "disprove" means." They would be the very first to trumpet such a thing. That's their job. If they haven't trumpeted it, it doesn't exist publicly.
 * OTOH, since the inaccuracies in the dossier are so few and minor, Fox has probably mentioned them a few times and stopped doing it. It's hard to build a case against the dossier based on a couple typos like "Alpha" Bank (instead of "Alfa" Bank) and "2015" (instead of "2016" in one place). There is also that district where mostly rich people live. There are differences of opinion about that, and Steele may have gotten outdated information, but it's not really a big issue. Errors in the allegations would be more serious. Steele allows the "golden showers" allegation may have only a 50% chance of being right.
 * So the fact, according to Smith, that Fox "doesn't know" of anything in the dossier that's been "disproven", that's really an important statement, the kind that could get him fired for challenging the GOP/Fox party line. It's the kind of evidence, grudgingly provided by a hostile witness in court. It's worth far more than the same coming from a friend. One would expect that from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, etc., but never from Fox. Shep is usually the only one who is honest there. A real journalist without spin. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tried to improve that content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

documentcloud
washingtonpost mentions buzzfeednews has "Trump-Intelligence-Allegations", why no mention ? [URL to Documentcloud removed per WP:COPYVIOEL]
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-christopher-steele-the-fbi-and-the-dossier/
 * https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

69.181.23.220 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this thoroughly, and those discussions are in the archives. Per WP:COPYVIOEL, we are not allowed to link directly to the URL at Documentcloud with the large amount of copyright-violating content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

BuzzFeed outlines in court filing how it decided to publish the Russia dossier
BuzzFeed outlines in court filing how it decided to publish the Russia dossier

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN about Michael Cohen and The Spectator
Please see this discussion at Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Politrukki (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have installed the improved version in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Entire thread copied here

Using a Spectator opinion column as a source
Consider these two examples from different articles:

Can an opinion column by "Cockburn", a pseudonym, writing in The Spectator be used as a source for allegation that Michael Cohen visited Czech Republic? Cohen testified to Congress and denied ever being to Prague or Czech Republic and has repeated the denials recently. I was unable to find any reliable source that cites this column. Politrukki (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes as it is an RS, and whilst the article may be under a pseudonym they know who it is, and it will have undergone normal vetting by an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know this opinion column has any significant editorial oversight, as required by WP:QS? Does this differ from a case where a journalist in The Wall Street Journal writes an opinion piece and reports something new (that the news division ignores) using unnamed sources? Politrukki (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK I shall reword it, it will undergo the same vetting as any other opp edd they publish, as nothing on their site says otherwise.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's reliable I don't see how having a pseudonymous author reduces the Spectator's adherence to journalistic regulation. This appears like a perfectly reliable source to me but it should be attributed to the Spectator. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If we cite an opinion column in The New York Times, should we attribute it to the author or The New York Times? Do you know whether "Cockburn" has any significant editorial oversight and do you know whether "Cockburn", is a reliable source? I mean, how can we vet the author? Is "Cockburn" often cited in the reliable sources? I'm not disputing that The Spectator is a reliable source, but there's a world of difference between news and editorials/op-eds. Politrukki (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Spectator says that their source is an intelligence source in London. They are a reliable source for that claim, and for any claim about what the intelligence source in London told them. This does not imply that the intelligence source in London is a reliable source. In the case of Irag's weapons of mass destruction, we have documented evidence of intelligence sources being ordered by their politician bosses to say things that they strongly suspect are not true. So "confirmed by The Spectator citing an intelligence source in London" is fine, but "confirmed by The Spectator" would not be. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To be specific, that intelligence source simply confirms a claim that Mueller has evidence of Cohen visiting Czech Republic, nothing about how ("through Germany") or where in the Czech Republic ("Prague"). Politrukki (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The in-text attribution is good here, but rather than "confirmed" I would use a less strident word like "claimed". Otherwise, it's a fine statement because it speaks in the Spectator's voice and not Wikipedia's.  -- Jayron 32 16:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reworked that content:
 * OLD:


 * NEW:


 * Is that better? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. Everything you wrote is verifiable by the sources cited.  McClatchy did report that, and The Spectator did make that statement.  -- Jayron 32 15:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everything. The Spectator does not even mention Germany. I don't think "through Germany" can be removed, so the part sourced to The Spectator should be reworded carefully. Politrukki (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point. We wouldn't want to leave any false impression. I'll give it another try here, based on this quote from the source: "McClatchy reported that the Mueller inquiry has been passed evidence of a Cohen visit to the Czech Republic – a claim backed up by one intelligence source in London.":

NEWER:

Politrukki and Jayron32, is that good enough? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have installed this improved version in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Parsing questions
Politrukki, Slatersteven, Simonm223, and Jayron32, I hate to do this, but reading the Spectator source again, I see a need for more careful parsing, and here is where I come up short. As an American living half my adult life in Europe, and speaking a foreign language most of the time, my once-perfect English grammar is no longer reliable. I'm language-confused. Here's the sentence to parse, because it has two clauses, and which one is being referred to by "a claim"?


 * OPTION ONE:


 * OPTION TWO:

Does "a claim" refer to the first or second phrase? I lean toward option two. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I found another source we haven't used. The context is Cohen's claims about never having visited Prague. Paul Wood speaking:

It would be OR to claim that this was the same person ("source") as mentioned in the previous reference ("one intelligence source in London"), but we can use this as a stand alone reference. We can certainly privately wonder: Are these "electronic records" the "evidence of a Cohen visit to the Czech Republic" "passed" to "the Mueller inquiry"?

We have used BBC journalist Paul Wood before as an expert source. It would also be OR to claim that the anonymous expert "Cockburn" at Spectator is "Paul Wood" at Spectator, but their language, wording, style, and expertise sure match well. Hmmm.... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging again (adding MelanieN: Politrukki, Slatersteven, Simonm223, Jayron32, and MelanieN. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are right - IMO the "claim" referred to in the second part of the sentence is not a claim that the Mueller team has been given evidence of something-or-other, but rather the claim that Cohen visited the Czech Republic. The whole thing is quite puzzling (I read it several times going "huh?"; one would think the Observer could write more clearly.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I think too. From above (Politrukki (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2018) one can see that Politrukki thinks otherwise, and I accepted that explanation. Later, after reading and editing it several times, I noticed that his explanation didn't seem to fit quite right, hence my request for help in parsing it. In the mean time, I revised content according to his suggestion, ending with (and installing) this version:


 * CURRENT VERSION

Now what to do? I'm beginning to think we should use this version approved by Jayron above (Jayron 16:15, 19 September 2018)


 * NEW:

...and add this from Paul Wood, a subject expert:

...resulting in this:

MelanieN, is that usable, or would you like to tweak it? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Late to the party but I'd suggest that the grammatical parsing is - the claim contains both clauses in this case. FWIW. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Simonm223, I think you're right. Even if it were only one, it is implicit that it includes the other, so "both" is correct. Somehow I managed to leave mention of Mueller out of the first part of my version above in the quotebox, so I'm going to make a completely new attempt below, based on the source material we have. I will deal with the "passed evidence" matter, as it's problematic. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely new attempt

 * Current version


 * Test version from above

Somehow I goofed up and left out any mention of Mueller in the first half of the version above. I should have done that. Below is a new attempt based on this source material


 * Summary version

Simonm223 and MelanieN, how's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Simonm223 (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have installed this version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Op-eds by Fusion GPS co-founders

 * Opinion - The Republicans' Fake Investigations
 * "The Republicans have….used their subpoena powers to harass administration critics, undermine the Justice Department’s inquiry into the Trump campaign's possible collaboration with Russia in 2016 and help the president's lawyers create an alternative narrative."


 * Opinion - The President’s Congressional Lap Dogs

I hit the paywall, but there may be something useful here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)