Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 20

Dossier aka "Trump-Russia" Dossier
The lede puts forward an alternative name for the Steele dossier, i.e., the "Russian-Trump" dossier. The name has no official standing, and the two sources put up for it are headlines only, not in the actual articles. Headlines in journalism are often designed to catch attention, and are not substantive (often not even written by the article author). In any case, when the dossier is named in the Washington Post article, it's called the "Steele dossier." I suspect, like other "headline grabbers" this is put into the lede for similar effect. Tachypaidia (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * a minor point, but the normal order is with Trump first, as in Trump-Russia dossier. I suspect your writing is a typo.
 * "Trump-Russia dossier" is the original title, not "Steele dossier". After a long period of time had elapsed, the media began using "Steele dossier" more and more, so we decided to change the title. There is no doubt about "Steele dossier", and there never was any doubt about the original title. You are the first one to ever question it, but you can't change history. "Trump dossier" is also seen frequently when referring to this document, while "Russia dossier" usually refers to the dossier of kompromat on Trump held by Russian intelligence. They have one on Hillary Clinton, and likely on any other high profile westerners, as well as on their own oligarchs. All intelligence services just love to do that!
 * We don't use headlines for significant content, for the reasons you mention, but we do use them to document usage, and if this was a big deal, I could dig up many RS that use that term in their content, not just their headlines, but this isn't even something we would normally source based on the history of the document and the rules for titles here.
 * We are also required to bold redirects, and the original title is now a redirect and is mentioned in the lead in the proper manner we always do with previous titles that have become redirects.
 * There was nothing sensational about that original title, as it was an accurately descriptive title, and it is still an accurate description of the content. Our rules for titles allow titles that are accurate descriptions of the content, regardless of use in RS, but we also use titles that are the most "common usage" in RS, so our rules would allow either title.
 * I'm not even sure why you requested sourcing. No one has ever done that, likely because they knew the history and the ubiquitous usage of that phrase by RS. Do you have some personal objection to that original title? -- Valjean (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At least initially, other titles, as the "Trump dossier", were in wide use, along with other names as the "Pee Dossier" or the "Pee-Tape Dossier" (with surprising popularity), the "Russian-Trump" dossier (in this sequence), the "Russian dossier" (used alone), et. al. The untitled nature of the dossier itself likely led to such disparate and morphing naming. I don't see where its inclusion serves disambiguation, but I would allow that it does have some search value for before the dossier's provenance became well known. Tachypaidia (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's called many things. Ones with "pee tape" have been popular because they are sensational, although they are, content-wise, not substantive, as that is a very minor accusation, and if false, doesn't in any way affect the potential reliability of the rest of the dossier. The other accusations are much more important, but just not as sensational. Even Steele didn't rate its likelihood of being true very high. The version of the tape posted online is interesting (almost PG13) and matches exactly the room in which Trump stayed, so if it's a fake, it's a very good one. I can send you the link if you want it. -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Steele dossier is bantered about with monikers as the Trump "pee tape" dossier preciously because of sensational accusations--as is the nature of slander--have the most damning effects in popular perception. This is why the Access Hollywood tape nearly sunk the Trump Campaign, far more so than any substantive policy criticism. It is politically advantageous to continually press exactly these salacious claims and keep scurrilous language in the narrative. Tachypaidia (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. People tend to gravitate toward sensational "shiny baubles" and ignore the more substantive and confirmed allegations. Trump's allies have successfully used these baubles to minimize and dismiss the dossier as just a trash document, even though the sexual allegations are a very small part of it, and his supporters fall for that tactic. His defenders rarely use serious arguments against it, likely because Trump keeps undermining such arguments by confirming that he is supporting, and benefitting from, the ongoing Russian GRU military's undeclared warfare and interference described in the dossier. Again, only his supporters are fooled. They won't admit that the main red thread in the dossier has been proven beyond all doubt. You are quite correct, but Trump benefits most by using distraction: "It is politically advantageous" for Trump to move the focus to the unproven "salacious claims" and "scurrilous language." That distracts from the real substance. He has never really suffered from his image as an immoral playboy. -- Valjean (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS opposed the inclusion of the sensational allegations, but Steele's MI6 training and own integrity required him to include all allegations so they could be investigated. Multiple independent sources claimed the Ritz Carlton allegation was true, and Moscow prostitutes still assert it happened (they do talk to each other... ). Steele himself never gave it much credibility. There are many other alleged actions by Trump which can provide kompromat to use against him. -- Valjean (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, these incessant salacious allegations by Trump-haters actually benefits Trump as he "never really suffered from his image as an immoral playboy?" So Trump-loving of them to do so. And this is why the Access Hollywood tape: "when you're a Star they let you do it... grab them by the ..." nearly ended his campaign, until he apologized for it? I am not going to argue such incongruities. Accusations must be proven, not disproven. Were Trump not a public figure, such accusations without propondering evidence would be prosecutable under slander statutes. Tachypaidia (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The courts have ruled otherwise about the publication of the dossier. It was in the public interest that it be published. Also, at Wikipedia, it is RS, not possible lawsuits, which guide our editing and content. It's not as if Wikipedia is publishing allegations not found in the media. We only document what myriad RS have written. A lawsuit would have to succeed at silencing them before it would reach Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point. The Court would not adjudicate these slanderous claims as a defamation claim precisely because the President is a public figure, and therefore, publication is in the public interest. This does not parlay into the accusations not being slanderous, only that because of the person's position the accusations cannot be prosecuted. Moreover, even given that the making of such accusations are legal, the does not absolve WP editors from exercising propriety in their editorial judgements. You may, for example, paste an ugly collage of accusations against Mr. Nicholas Sandman by citing "reliable sources," but that is neither prudent nor proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you even mention this. Without some policy-based reference, I have no idea what you're really getting at. Do you think we are violating some Wikipedia policy here? One would think the myriad others who watch this article would have noticed that by now, if that were the case. We have been very careful to follow all policies, including WP:PUBLICFIGURE. All allegations are properly sourced and described as allegations, not proven fact, except where they are proven fact. (Several are proven fact, but still presented as allegations, so we tend to err on the side of caution here.) -- Valjean (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I make a statement on propriety in use of slanderous materials, and I get a pedestrian response on within "policy." The defamation lawsuits are plenty, and dismissed not on the merits, but based on some "privilege," but even so, some have prevailed or are still pending. Given what has recently come to light in primary sources, we know these accusations are, to be generous, on thinnest tissue. Indeed, accusations based on malicious money-grubbing fabulists is more fair. The "reliable sources" have wholly omitted addressing these primary sources, or as the New York Times does, misdirects; rather than addressing the significance and reliability of Steel's primary source, we get a dirge on the Trump administration disclosing his identity (which was already disclosed by private researchers) and walnut-shell shuffling on the substantive implications. Given that we know far more from primary sources, a decent respect would require discerning and responsible use of these deficient and partisan secondary sources in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what you really want to do. Are you suggesting that we not document what RS say? Content that is believed to be slanderous by some is not considered slanderous by others, so we simply follow NPOV and don't take a position (taking sides) on that in our editing when myriad RS have documented the allegations. That is the case here. NPOV tells us to stay neutral and simply document what RS say. We then follow how our policies instruct us to deal with such material. We can hardly refuse to document and describe what The Guardian has described it as "one of the most explosive documents in modern political history".
 * As far as sourcing goes, policy tells us to primarily base our content on secondary and tertiary sources, and only reservedly on primary sources for uncontroversial statements of fact without interpretation, usually those that have already been mentioned in some manner in secondary sources. (For example, a secondary source may vaguely mention when something happened, but good primary sources provide us with the exact date. We can then use that primary source to provide the exact date.) If we depend on primary sources for controversial content, we risk violating OR.
 * The "reliability of Steele's primary source" is somewhat questionable after the publication of the dossier, as the FBI noted. They noted that, after the dossier became public, he seemed to be minimizing his role as a source, IOW not being completely honest, which is quite understandable as his life is in danger. He wants to distance himself from what he originally said. One of his key sub-sources did the same thing, and the FBI also noted that fact. When people are covering their ass, you can trust that their original statements, made in confidence, were likely truthful, but their later statements are less than honest. When people get exposed or embarrassed, they often resort to deception.
 * Do you have any other policy-based considerations we should keep in mind? I'm certainly open to considering them. -- Valjean (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other policy-based considerations we should keep in mind? I'm certainly open to considering them. -- Valjean (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Eh the request move shows that Trump-Russia Dossier is not a correct title for the article and rarely used as a title for it. I don't think we need an also known as in the lead like that. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do need that wording there. Read my comment above more carefully. We are required to bold the redirect of the former title. That is standard practice here. Titles can also be descriptive, regardless of "common usage". The original title filled that role, and a search with those terms will always point to the right information.
 * The close of the requested move said: "Both titles are permissible, but consensus clearly favors the proposed target." That consensus took a long time to change, and I was among them who favored the change. -- Valjean (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would you assume I did not read your comment carefully? Also your arguments make no sense. Do you know how many redirects there are to this page? Why focus on that one? I see no need or benefit to the reader to keep the inaccurate and outdated title of the article in the lead. From what I am seeing consensus in this discussion is to remove the unnecessary extra title at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't mention and bold just any redirect. We mention and bold former titles, especially when they are still accurate descriptions. The title is not "inaccurate and outdated". I don't like it isn't a good reason to alter the current wording. You need policy-based arguments. You are bucking long traditions and manual of style rules. -- Valjean (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again with the baseless personal accusations, cut that shit out. If you don't have an argument to keep it that is fine, you could just like that particular redirect over the previous titles or redirects and that is fine. But we generally do not include useless trivial like that especially when there is no basis for it. As you should know by now we go by consensus, at this point consensus is showing that we should exclude it. PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ?? I don't know what personal accusations you're referring to. I try to be careful. So far you have expressed what you don't like, but not referenced any policy-based reasons for making any change. I welcome such reasons, as it is those we can use for making decisions. I suggest you check myriad other articles which have had their titles changed. You'll find that they often do exactly what we've done here because that's what we're supposed to do. No editor here has added those words for any personal or partisan reasons. -- Valjean (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Things like suggesting I did not read the conversation, that I was making a DONTLIKEIT argument, and now recently that I make these comments for "partisan reasons" those are the personal comments that I asked you to stop. Do you not see the issue with what you are doing here? PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your complaints (that you don't like it) without any mention or basis in policy, manual of style, or normal and historical practice are just that. That's just an accurate observation, not a PA. The "partisan reasons" words have absolutely nothing to do with you. I don't know how you could even think that. To move things in a more constructive direction, try using policy-based reasoning. I haven't seen any of that yet. -- Valjean (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So that is a no then? You have no idea why your personal comments are inappropriate? Okay then. Listen, I know you like having your old title there but you have to face facts without any MOS or policy based reason to keep it, it is up to editor discretion. Please respect consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2 out of 3 is hardly a consensus, so you should self-revert, but I will just do it per BRD. Vote counting isn't determinative, especially when you have not presented any policy or MOS reasons for changing things. None at all. That's why your objections are just that you don't like it.
 * Manual of Style/Lead section has this to say, and there may be other places that mention our common practice: "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold."
 * I have reverted your improper change. Now please continue discussion per BRD, as you haven't presented a single policy-based reason yet. -- Valjean (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Going to edit war your preferred version now? It says significant alternative title which that is not. Consensus found that it was not back with the request move. It is giving undue weight to a fringe view with a irrelevant title like that. Your ownership of this article is becoming tendentious and should cease immediately along with your personal comments to me and Tachypaida. It is really starting to look like WP:SEALION. PackMecEng (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A single, allowed, revert is not edit warring. In the absence of any policy-based arguments from you, continuing discussion is the proper thing to do, and your attacks aren't appreciated.
 * You have mentioned this before, and I'd like to see evidence for your claim: "It says significant alternative title which that is not. Consensus found that it was not back with the request move." Look here: Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 18. Where in that RM do you get that idea? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see that we discussed "significant alternative titles" at all. I really doubt that anyone would agree with your assertion that it is a "fringe view" or "irrelevant title". Civil discussion is not ownership behavior, and my history at this article does not show any ownership problems. Please be civil and just address my concerns. What policies justify your arguments? I have presented our MOS justification and common practice. -- Valjean (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep saying you have policy and MOS on your side but you do not. As we both have demonstrated, repeatedly. In fact it is exactly against the MOS as you present since it is not a significant alternative titles again as demonstrated by the request move you even linked to. It specifically found that your title was wrong and in the far minority. Your failure to accept consensus and stonewall your prefered version is NOT civil discussion. It is a clear case of WP:SEALION. I think at this point can revert citing clear consensus here since you have no policy based arguments. I would be happy to discuss it more with you after to see if it has an merit to be included in the article, which at this point it does not. PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that it's not a significant alternative title. It was significant enough to be the title for a very long time, and it is still a very accurate description of the content. That is unchanged. You can't deny that this article is about a dossier that describes Trump-Russia relations. That title was never "wrong", and it is still not "wrong". That was not why we changed the title.
 * You're describing your opinion, but have yet to even mention a policy for not including it. The requested move took no position on the subject, only that Steele's name was now used more in the media and so we changed the title per common usage. MOS says to bold significant alternative titles, and that was the most significant alterative title, so that's why it's there. The MOS tells us to do that.
 * "Trump-Russia dossier" is still, totally unchanged, a significant search term and accurate description, even more so than "Steele dossier", which has zero descriptive value about the content, only the provenance. The title change did not represent a change of content. It's still about Trump and Russia.
 * Again, please suggest policies to back your opinions, otherwise they still stand alone as just your opinions. -- Valjean (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep suggesting that our opinions are invalid for some reason? I don't understand that. Since neither of our arguments are specifically backed by policy it is editor discretion and in this case that is to remove the obsolete and useless title. Your opinion is backed by personal opinion where as mine is backed by community consensus that the previous was not a good title. I really do not see what is so hard to understand? Please enlighten me why you want to fight consensus so hard. Please help improve the article rather than this. PackMecEng (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinions without any policy backing don't have any weight. I have MOS behind my view. The RM took no position on the merits of the former title as a description. It's still very accurate, and since the MOS says to bold significant alternative titles in the first sentence, and we do that in myriad other articles, it's perfectly proper to do it here. The consensus you refer to is only in this thread, with you and Tachypaidia against me. That's not impressive. -- Valjean (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no name has "official" standing, but it's known as both, albeit with Steele dossier being the WP:COMMONNAME. Guy (help!) 10:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Opinions without any policy backing don't have any weight. I have MOS behind my view. Again you do not. Please stop repeating that debunked claim. MOS and policy back our interpretation, not yours. No matter how many times you repeat them. Also while I appreciate that you do not think there is consensus, you are also mistaken there as well. Your arguments are not very convincing and hold no weight. I suggest you self revert and let the consensus version stand. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the consensus was on the title itself and not the content, it's common to have significant alternative titles present in the lede, which is the case presently - from WP:OTHERNAMES, ...when this title (i.e. COMMONNAME) is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (emphasized text mine). If you compare "Steele dossier" to "Trump dossier" in Google News hits, the terms are almost on par, 60k vs. 63k respectively. If you observe Google Trends, you get about 18 to 9 in their interest metric, which clearly shows that Trump dossier is a significant alternative title and thus per policy, deserves inclusion. "Steele dossier" as the COMMONNAME is established and is present in the title, but that same consensus cannot and should not negate policy-based reasoning for lede inclusion of other alternative titles. Assuming if anything was intended for headline-grabbing or not is not the prerogative of Wikipedia, our readers' best interests should be kept in mind first. Best,  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice seeing you stop by again, you seem to do that a lot lately. I think your numbers are wrong though. I get 63k with "Steele dossier" and 51k for "Trump dossier" and if you go with what he actually used "Trump–Russia dossier" it is 5k hits from google news. Next yes, the request move was on what the name of the article should be and what it is best known by. That is what consensus found, that "Trump–Russia dossier" was a poor title. Still is and is not a good also known as since it really is not also known as that. Since it is not a widely used title, it does not qualify under that MOS. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that means you'd be amenable to Trump dossier? I never denied Russia-Trump was a bad title (if you'll what read what I said again), I simply stated that it (or a variation) holds enough water to be included in the lede. Best,  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 19:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read over our discussions above you will note that I disagree while giving examples why. Getting hits on Google news is simply not enough to qualify for that especially a POV title like that. Heck why not also known as Trump Pee Tape Dossier? It gets hits on google! Probably because it is a crappy POV title, much like this one. PackMecEng (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Also I think you meant to say Trump–Russia dossier not Russia-Trump, since no one is talking about that title? PackMecEng (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Google News is a poor metric to use, as there are many other RS. Here are both types of searches:
 * Google News search:
 * Trump Russia dossier - 210,000 results
 * Trump dossier - 7,960,000 results
 * Steele dossier - 151,000 results
 * Google general search:
 * Trump Russia dossier - 7,470,000 results
 * Trump dossier - 42,200,000 results
 * Steele dossier - 12,400,000 results
 * Regardless of our current title, the mention of Trump, Russia, and dossier is still the most accurate description and a significant alternative title and search term, and policy justifies using it. -- Valjean (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No it does not. PackMecEng (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * POV title? What's POV about it? That's what the sources describe, so it's their description, not ours. -- Valjean (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again most sources do not use that title, which is why the request move was successful. PackMecEng (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * what is POV about that former title? -- Valjean (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It gives more weight and credit to the document that is due from what it does describe. Rather than what it really is. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand how, in this case, using those three words that describe the content of the dossier can give weight and credit. Please explain. What do you think would be a better title for this article? (Now we're talking about the actual title of the article, not its former title.) "What it really is". Please explain. -- Valjean (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how OTHERNAMES works in conjunction with NPOV. To make it absolutely clear, it's more POV to include Steele dossier and not an alternative significant title (i.e. Trump dossier) than if it were to have both alternate titles - to quote WP:NPOV, this would mean that this article should include ...all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 19:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again I think you are misunderstanding the argument. That title is NOT a significant view. That is the problem here, it is promoting a minority view. We base our content on how RS treat the subject and do not promote fringe views of what it is or what it is called. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And this is where I ask you, on what basis are you saying so? { -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be looking at recent sources and the request move. PackMecEng (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:QUO and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. As such, the onus is on you to provide evidence to change the status quo. Hope that clarifies it. Best,  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant to what is happening here, but thanks? You know that is the weakest and least useful or strong consensus right? You are basically linking to WP:SILENCE which is borderline meaningless. Specifically Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident which this clearly is. You will notice there is no affirmative consensus for it. Honestly you could even make a play for WP:ONUS in this situation since there was no explicit condenses.{ PackMecEng (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the weakest, but the most basic form of consensus, yes. It's how Wikipedia works and as I said before, the onus is still on you to provide evidence for your change from the status quo. Oh, and since you mentioned WP:ONUS - the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content which has been done now and was also done previously, via WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Best,  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 19:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so much actually. Implied consensus is only a thing unless and until it is challenged. Then BOOM onus applies to get consensus for inclusion. You have it completely backwards. A common misconception I suppose but one not supported by policy. PackMecEng (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? Maybe you *should* actually read the policies you are citing. As I've said before, IMPLICITCONSENSUS applies always. You seem to think that ONUS is a get-out-of-jail-free-card, but ONUS would only apply if it was included and disputed at the time of inclusion, which was not the case here, and as I've stated again and again... there is a consensus now because consensus by editing and status quo apply. I suggest you stop misapplying existing policies and for the last time, either you present your evidence or drop the WP:STICK. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again you have it backwards. If you are not going to acknowledge your mistake and stop following me around I think we are done here. Drop the stick indeed! PackMecEng (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Disconnected content that belongs somewhere above

 * Moreover, if anything, it would be referenced as "formerly known as", but that title holds no such status, anymore than any of the other myriad of titles that flailed about before the provenance of the dossier was known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The provenance was revealed the day after its existence became known to the public. Before that it was unknown to the public. The original title existed from January 13, 2017‎ until December 28, 2019, so the current title is relatively recent. That's how long it took for it to become the most frequently searched term. Our rules here would still justify using the old title, but we also chose to follow the most common usage, which is the case now.
 * Using "formerly known" would be a reference to Wikipedia's former title, and we don't do that here, hence the traditional "also known" mention, which is our traditional practice here. You are bucking long traditions and manual of style rules. -- Valjean (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The provenance is still not fully known, though it recently has become far more complete. My searches show there was broad diversity in naming; there is no prime meridian where the name changes to the singular reference, rather, it was a progressive change from a multitude of titles as its provenance became increasingly understood and the slur titles have been displaced.Tachypaidia (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "provenance"? I thought you meant who is responsible for the creation of the dossier. We already learned that the day after BuzzFeed published it. Steele created it, and BuzzFeed is responsible for publishing it against the wishes of Steele. It should never have been published. It was supposed to undergo more investigation and revision before any type of publication, and even then, Steele had no intention for it to ever be published.
 * As far as the history of a "broad diversity" of names used by RS for the dossier, I totally agree. That is what happened. Here at Wikipedia, we followed policy and gave the article the most accurate and descriptive title imaginable.
 * Donald Trump Russia dossier was the very first title, and that got tweaked. -- Valjean (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion
Suddenly, this article is lighting up like a Christmas tree and taking up half the screen on my watchlist. I am not understanding your concern. "Trump Russia Dossier" has been stable in the article for months, and it was a close call when we moved the title to "Steele Dossier". The google stats seem to confirm the wisdom of our choices. Why wouldn't we include the name by which it is still popularly known and indeed may still turn out to be the dominant name for it in the future? Who will have heard of Steele, anyway? What is the core of your concern? Is it just using Trump's name? I can't see that's a problem. Is this related to the increasing chatter in the Trump universe media about the "Russia Hoax?" That is not taken seriously in the mainstream.  SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah normally it is just Valjean's constant edits to the page or him stonewalling someone wanting to make a change. Then QEDK follows me here. It's been a whole thing. Basically as the old wording is less and less in use by RS and less relevant, the usefulness in the lead comes into question. PackMecEng (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Stonewalling"? You're interpreting my failure to be impressed by your lack of policy-based reasoning as "stonewalling"? I suggest you stop the personalizing and casting of aspersions. I have been very civil in our discussion, and I had hoped you would do the same, but I have been disappointed.
 * If you check the history of this article, you will find that I have given serious consideration to all legitimate suggestions, and usually edit in favor of the suggestion, or, when someone else has made the edit, not objected. I don't own this article. Some of my strongest critics can attest to finding me quite easy to work with. The difference with them and you is that you haven't based your arguments on any policies, whereas I and QEDK have done so, but you don't like it. We can't make changes that are not only not policy-based, but actually against policy. -- Valjean (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pack, I think the Trump Russia Dossier is established article text. Regardless of what the future brings, I don't think it's obsolete just yet. So I would suggest -- if you are convinced it's zombie relic of deprecated sources -- that you launch an RfC. That would seem to be necessary to remove it, given that it is well-sourced and long-established. I doubt the RfC would be closed to remove, but... SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At one time I would agree with you. That is the problem with the dossier and notnews in general. Before it is really know what they have they make it sound like something worth while. Then when it turns out to not so much be of value it quietly gets pushed to the corner which is what happened with the Steele dossier. Now, since it had such wide coverage early on inaccuracies get stuck in the article where they don't really belong. PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What SPECIFICO said. You can't keep making baseless accusations without any evidence (which to repeat, I've asked you for three times and each time, you use whataboutism and talk about my fictional mistake) and expect to have your way. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 10:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would !vote to retain. Too well known, and the connection really is undeniable. O3000 (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The old title is still an accurate description of the subject and contents of the dossier, and that will be unchanged for a million years. The dossier is written, and unless it gets changed, those words describe it accurately and will never be outdated. -- Valjean (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain above, where this is touched on. -- Valjean (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether the dossier is accurate or not, its subjects are still Trump and Russia. I don't see how Trump-Russia dossier is inaccurate.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue with Trump-Russia dossier is that a title like that presents the dossier as an authority on the subject, which as more time passes it is shown to clearly not be. Basically is promotes it as more important or valuable to the subject of Trump and Russian than it can creditably be taken as. As such it presents an undue pov under a title like that. As more of the dossier is debunked or as courts prove the shoddy research methods used it becomes apparent the purpose of it. Which was not intelligence on Trump and Russia as it turns out. PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think would be a better title for this article? (Now we're talking about the actual title of the article, not its former title.) -- Valjean (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Steele Dossier is the correct title for this article with no also known as. I am not talking about actual title above, just the also known as. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then what is wrong with the old title? In what way is it inaccurate? Please suggest a more accurate wording. -- Valjean (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I literally explained this issue above. Nothing should be in the also known as. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, policy and multiple experienced editors say otherwise. Personal POV and narratives pushed by unreliable sources should not dictate article titles. I suspect that a title like Steele's debunked hoax dossier would find approval with some. -- Valjean (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that my joke redirect (Steele's debunked hoax dossier) was actually created by PME, and I have nominated it for deletion as a clearly POV redirect and POINT violation. We do not allow POV fringe content as redirects. Redirects should not be based on editors' opinions, but on RS. -- Valjean (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Policy disagrees with you, but yes others have disagreed at this point. Perhaps in the future when this article is ready to be trimmed. No idea what personal POV you are referring to though, is that your own? I don't think you generally use unreliable sources though you do use a lot of biased sources. PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What policy disagrees with us? I and QEDK have both presented policies, and you have presented none. -- Valjean (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I presented the same policy you two did and explained how you misapplied it. Several times above. You seem to keep ignoring that. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You pinged me here with good intentions I understand, Valjean, but PME clearly has no intention to collaborate or provide their evidence (if any). Just let it be.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 16:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ec... Yes, I suspected this might happen. -- Valjean (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pack, I was about to ask the same question. I'm new here. What policy prevents us from using the common name, Trump-Russia Dossier or even Trump Dossier in the lead? I think if you stop the woman on the street and say DOSSIER! she will say TRUMP!, followed in some cases by "hoax", which doesn't change the Trump/Russia association.  SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that more of an endorsement for Trump Dossier over Trump-Russia Dossier for the also known as? PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Either one, but what policy tells us we may not give the common usage, either one or both, in the lead? Most folks don't know who Steele is. SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think most know the Trump-Russia Dossier either. It is an awkward, and these days rarely used, title that in the end is misleading on what the purpose of it is. I feel that because of that, the lack of use by RS these days, lack of common usage or knowledge by the public, that it has no value to the reader and does not fit the MOS listed above. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by a ? Do you mean that "Trump Russia Dossier" doesn't make clear that it was a Dem propaganda screed? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I went into it a bite more above replying to Starship.paint above. The issue with Trump-Russia dossier is that a title like that presents the dossier as an authority on the subject, which as more time passes it is shown to clearly not be. Basically is promotes it as more important or valuable to the subject of Trump and Russian than it can creditably be taken as. As such it presents an undue pov under a title like that. As more of the dossier is debunked or as courts prove the shoddy research methods used it becomes apparent the purpose of it. Which was not intelligence on Trump and Russia as it turns out. PackMecEng (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We still say "flat earth theory" and "holy roman empire". Which court rulings?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Steele dossier buried near the end of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything from any court that would relate to Trump-Russia. So why not acknowledge the common name? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The court stuff showed poor research in general and in relation to Russia. I just am not seeing it as a common name in this day and age. PackMecEng (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is getting into Original Research. We do not see the weight of mainstream RS making the inference to disregard the entire Dossier. And there's still the Flat Earth Theory analogy. It is still commonly called Trump-Russia. It is consensus article content so it would need a big new consensus to remove it. I think that w/o an RFC to remove, it would stay in.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is the crux of the issue isn't it? Your OR says it is still commonly called that and mine disagrees. The only consensus for it's inclusion is one revert a few months ago. So no, an RFC is not required to remove it as a also known as. When you say We do not see the weight of mainstream RS making the inference to disregard the entire Dossier. well that is fine, but also besides the point really. I am not arguing for disregarding the dossier as a whole. It all comes down to the current prominence of "Trump-Russia Dossier" in use by the public and RS today. Which as I mentioned above is severely lacking to be given such a position in the article and as such does not comply with the policy or MOS cited above. PackMecEng (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ec... If RS ever start documenting it as a hoax, we might consider adding that to the title, but the subject of the dossier cannot be changed (it isn't under revision), and thus will for eternity still be about Trump and his campaign's illicit ties to, and collusion with, the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. That is nailed down quite firmly. Various problems with how it was used for the last two FISA warrants, Clinesmith's actions, and what the FBI noted as (rather dishonest) attempts by the Primary sub-source and a key sub-source to distance themselves (after their roles became known) from what they had said in confidence to compatriots (they're now scared shitless), have not changed any of that. One cannot trust people who are involved in covering their asses.
 * The dossier is still about Trump and Russia. The only more precise title we could have used was Steele's Trump-Russia dossier, as Putin does possess Putin's dossier of kompromat on Trump, but we don't have an article about that subject. All we have is all the indications (provided by Trump's actions) that Trump acts like Putin has something serious on him and acts like a Russian asset. Whether it's witting or unwitting is rather immaterial, as the consequences are the same, with Trump clearly favoring Russian interests over American interests, and the dossier was right about that. -- Valjean (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with much of what you said here. PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. What we should be able to agree on, regardless of POV about the validity of the dossier, is that it's about Trump and Russia. That is the red thread. -- Valjean (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. PackMecEng (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you realize that you aren't making much sense. That's like saying that Lady Chatterly and Oliver Mellors are irrelevant to Lady Chatterley's Lover. The subject of a book and a dossier are super relevant. -- Valjean (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I keep explaining it to you over and over in different ways and you keep missing the point. No the subject of the dossier is not relevant for knowing the commonly use also known as. I don't understand how you don't know the difference? PackMecEng (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Pack, so I'm hearing 2 arguments from you to change the consensus text. 1) A British court found an unrelated issue under their tort law. 2) Most folks no longer say "Trump Russia Dossier". If I understand you, you've dropped #1 in favor of #2. Is that your current position? #2?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The argument I have made is the title is undue and misleading for the "also known as" spot. The court stuff is an example of the misleading part. The undue portion is the no longer is common use. PackMecEng (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is why the title was changed, as Steele dossier is in more common use now than when the article was created, but Manual of Style/Lead section says that "significant alternative titles" (with no mention of "common use") are to be included and bolded in the first sentence. We normally use the previous title when a new title has been adopted. Your position that it is undue and misleading is just your POV and not supported by RS or mainstream editors here. Even Google searches show that combinations of the three words Trump, Russia, and dossier are the most commonly used search terms. See my Google searches above. Steele dossier lags far behind. -- Valjean (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pack, I think Valjean has summed up why the aka needs to stay in the article. Your projection of unrelated OR from a British court ruling is not supported by RS. The common name is well-established and there's no evidence that the usage has changed. Think Flat Earth Theory. At this point, I think the matter has been settled rather convincingly and I hope you will move on and let Valjean buy you a drink. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are in the article? What OR are you talking about? I liked to the sourced section talking about that. That is not up for debate or question. Also see below for what the common name actually is and evidence of that. PackMecEng (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. An RfC that tries to push this odd agenda would boomerang big time. It's time to drop this as it's a timesink and detracts from real editing. -- Valjean (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure you know what boomerang is or means in the context of a RFC... PackMecEng (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * All within the last year. AFP, July 2020: Trump-Russia dossier, Sky, July 2020: Trump-Russia dossier, The Telegraph, March 2020: Trump-Russia dossier, The Times, January 2020: Trump-Russia dossier, Fox News, September 2019: the document known as the Trump-Russia dossier The sources have spoken. It's a valid name.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes those are in the minority. New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Politico, CNN, NPR, and The New Yorker are in the majority. As you can plainly see the sources have spoken. These are also good sources not so much the likes of SKY, AFP, or Fox. So what we have is the majority of good RS going away from the old moniker, and we should follow RS on this and keep the old, undue, and pov former title out of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * PS The Times source you list only calls it that in the headline which is not a RS, the rest of the article uses Steele Dossier. Also the Fox source uses both. PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if the sources in the minority, that doesn’t matter. I’m not asking for Trump-Russia dossier to be the article title. It’s just an alternate name. AFP is a top tier source, not sure why you disparaged it. Old doesn’t mean undue. Sources using it means not undue. Plus if Fox News okayed it, how much POV is it really?  starship .paint  (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the sources posted above have also used the alternative name at times. NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Politico, CNN, NPR, New Yorker. If the sources are as good as claimed, then the alternative name should be acknowledged.  starship .paint  (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See now you switched back to mostly old sources, which again shows them moving away from the Trump-Russia Dossier title. The issue is not that the title has been used in the past, it is that it is no longer is common use by the public or RS and as such does not satisfy the significant aspect of MOS:LEADALT. Basically it is no longer a significant alternative title for the dossier. Is it still sometimes used? Yes, rarely as I demonstrated and even less in the current day now that RS have more historic perspective on the subject. Even just now the sources you presented are largely old and again as I pointed out with all those recent sources I linked it is a term out of favor with RS. As Valjean has pointed out several times, we go by RS here, editors personal POV is not sufficient. PackMecEng (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - Pack, I don't think the weight of RS buys into your personal theory that a British civil suit award somehow invalidates the fact that the Dossier tells a narrative about Trump and Russia. Per 's recent post, the Trump-Russia tag cannot credibly be claimed out of use. But if you want to garner support for that view, why not go to the NPOV noticeboard and see whether the rest of us here are all off our rockers? Without that or an RfC I can't see the point of further discussion here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I have RS and policy on the side of my position. You have a few fringe views and POV. Thanks but no thanks. Heck all the sources I presented prove my point, the fact that he found out dated outliers just reinforced that. Obviously an RFC is not necessary since there is no consensus for inclusion, heck if you want to get technical he hasn't even satisfied WP:ONUS. You also keep going on about the content of the dossier being about Russia, that is a red herring in relation to the "also known as" section of the lead. Kind of like Valjean above not understanding that aspect of MOS as well. PackMecEng (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything you just wrote applies to your position, and your 2-1 "consensus" to violate policy is long gone, so you could try NPOV/N to see if your claim that it's a POV title gains traction. Otherwise, we're going in circles here. -- Valjean (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, policy expressly allows POV titles under many circumstances, especially when based on their history and use in RS. -- Valjean (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is for article titles, not also known as sections of the lead. Is that the difference you two are getting hung up on? PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously an RFC is not necessary since there is no consensus for inclusion Like every time, you make blatantly incorrect statements which are agreeable with you but wrong in every other way. You have at least 4 other editors telling you that you're inaccurate and are misapplying policy but somehow there is still "no consensus" for inclusion. I really don't think you understand how policies work, so I'll repeat it, when the statement was included, it wasn't disputed, which falls under IMPLICITCONSENSUS and QUO (links above for your perusal), ONUS applies only when the content being included is also "disputed" at the time of inclusion, which did not occur, meaning that the threshold for ONUS was met at that time by the policies cited before (because it wasn't "disputed"). As such, per QUO and IMPLICITCONSENSUS, the onus is on the person wishing to make the change (because it's disputed, now...) to provide evidence and gain consensus (which you haven't done and have no intention of doing, clearly). So, yes, you will open a RfC to gain the required consensus, because there is literally no policy-based reasoning for your changes - quit making your fictional and arbitrary version of policies to support your viewpoint. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 11:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep making the same incorrect arguments about how consensus works and the purpose of RFCs. I thought progress was being made at this point. Valjean finally agreed it was POV and hopefully understands the difference between a article title and a "also known as" section. Please read over the article history found here, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS, WP:SILENT, and WP:RFC. I understand you think WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS applies here but as I explained to you, several times in fact, above that is not the case. It is the weakest form of consensus that disappears when it is challenged. Second with WP:QUO that is a WP:ESSAY, not policy or a guideline. Though if you want to cite it perhaps It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling would be useful to you. So again, don't be ridiculous and say a RFC is required to remove that material. PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that now you're just pretending to be ignorant to get your way because the exact same page you're quoting has Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. Since the first edit was not disputed at the time of inclusion or reverted, it has consensus, that's literally what implicit consensus means, it doesn't mean it disappears at any time it's challenged - in fact, that alternative name has been in the lede for more than 500 edits until you came by and reverted it. So, your revert counts as a revision and that revision needs consensus for inclusion. If you still don't get it, I don't think you'll get it at all. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 15:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't read those links I gave huh? PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ??"Valjean finally agreed it was POV"?? PME, that's utter BS. I only clarified that POV titles are allowed, so even if you succeeded in convincing (fat chance) the NPOV/N board that it was POV, you'd still fail. -- Valjean (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

compiled information, see below. Feel free to copy this.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * May 2017 as “Donald Trump–Russia dossier”
 * January 2018 as “Trump–Russia dossier”
 * January 2019 as “Trump–Russia dossier”
 * January 2020 as “Trump–Russia dossier”


 * 1) ABC News
 * 2) Associated Press
 * 3) The Atlantic
 * 4) Australian Broadcasting Corporation
 * 5) BBC News
 * 6) CBC
 * 7) CNN
 * 8) Daily Telegraph
 * 9) Financial Times
 * 10) The Hill
 * 11) NBC News
 * 12) New York
 * 13) New Yorker
 * 14) New York Times
 * 15) New Zealand Herald
 * 16) NPR
 * 17) Politico
 * 18) Politifact
 * 19) ProPublica
 * 20) Reason
 * 21) Der Spiegel
 * 22) Time
 * 23) USA Today
 * 24) Wall Street Journal
 * 25) Washington Post


 * 1) Digital Journalism
 * 2) Ethical Theory and Moral Practie
 * 3) Harvard International Law Journal
 * 4) Intelligence and National Security
 * 5) Public Relations Review


 * 1) Fox News
 * 2) New York Post
 * 3) Washington Examiner
 * 4) Washington Times
 * 5) Daily Wire
 * 6) The Blaze
 * 7) Breitbart
 * 8) Epoch Times
 * 9) Daily Caller
 * 10) Gateway Pundit


 * The also known as, which is what we are discussing here was removed after the request move by here and re-added by Valjean here. The diffs you cite are mostly from before the RM, which is why the also known as at the time was Steele Dossier. Next, a list of old sources again? I listed 22 before but I could do more if you like, they would be recent and relevant as well. We already discussed the issue with using old sources since they do not accurately represent modern day. Also several of your sources cite both. Also what is with a bunch of your links being broken or not to the target you say? in the right-leaning section for example they are google addresses? PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, with those two diffs, you're misrepresenting what happened. Rusf10 just forgot to switch the two, which is the normal practice, so I did it when I noticed that the recommended practice was not followed. That version has remained unchallenged ever since, until you came along, and your deletion was immediately challenged. You don't have a leg to stand on, and what you've been doing looks like what you accused me of doing: Sealioning. It's time to drop the stick. -- Valjean (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What stick? At this point all I have been doing is replying to you guys. You seem hell bent on me agreeing with you for some reason. I have stated why I do not and then here you are again. With the same argument over and over. It is getting ridiculous honestly. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, its the other person who refuses to drop the stick, not you PackMecEng. This was already discussed when the page move was done and I really do not believe "Trump-Russia dossier" should be used at all, so no it was not that I "just forgot to switch the two." First when you do a Google news search with quotes (because without them you just get every single article that mentions Trump, Russia, and a dossier, but not necessarily with the phrase "Trump-Russia dossier") you will see what the clear COMMONNAME and its not even close. "Steele dossier" gets 44,800 hits, but "Trump Russia dossier" gets only 4,750. If you do a regular Google search you also find "Steele dossier" has ten times more hits than "Trump Russia dossier". Steele wrote it, he owns it.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would add a few considerations not yet made in this discussion. The name "Trump-Russian” dossier is not representative of the definition that follows, i.e., “containing allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and co-operation between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia." In a perfunctory sense that is partially true, but the charge of the dossier, by the Democratic party, per the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign, was the taking out of a contract on Donald Trump, the person. The dossier’s existence is rooted in a belief that Trump was compromised, Russian asset. In theory, the dossier could include activities outside the campaign and need not even had included the campaign, unless it was being used by Trump. In this respect, the original title (per @Valjeans) was the "Donald Trump Russia” dossier; at least this is more honest to its targeted purpose. As we begin to learn the insidious origin of this operation per primary sources, we see that the title reflects a horrible injustice. Given this, there has been some tendency, as good human nature would allow, to lower its perfidy, and so we come to the “Steele” dossier. When a work is discovered to be a fabrication, it’s name may qualified with ‘pseudo-‘, ‘fake’, ‘forgery’.  Most recently, the “Niger uranium forgeries” (used for political purposes in launching the war on Iraq. Interestingly, the Left is now taking the same incredulously defense of the dossier that the Right took of the Niger forgeries back then); but while this dossier is a fabrication, the progress on extracting the primary documents is painstakingly slow; and amplified here by editors disclaiming “OR” to further and prolong the obfuscation. The more genteel mannered course is to use “Steele” dossier in the lead and clearly subordinate the salacious and false accusations, or, alternatively, rewriting the lead to expose in its ugly detail that this was a Democratic political operation, not too dissimilar from the Zinoviev letter, and that it targeted Donald Trump personally. Tachypaidia (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow! Where to start? Maybe you should start by AGF in your fellow editors. Let's look at a few of your statements:


 * "the charge of the dossier, by the Democratic party, per the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign, was the taking out of a contract on Donald Trump, the person."
 * The Democratic party/DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign had no role in the preparation of the dossier. You need to read the article, because the provenance of the dossier is clearly explained, according to RS. Read this section: "#What the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Steele knew" The DNC did not have any contact with Steele and gave no marching orders. Those orders came from Fusion GPS's co-owners, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch. Steele's assignment from them was to answer this basic question: "Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?" He was the candidate, so obviously he was targeted. EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE is targeted by the opposition and is the subject of opposition research. This is normal practice. Trump, unlike other candidates, was friends with the enemy. That is not normal, so any suspicions were raised by his own behavior, and still are raised by his continued favoring of Russian over American interests. All the top brass in American intelligence agencies believe he is a witting or unwitting Russian asset, and they have stated so in pubic, so Trump has gotten rid of them. The dossier has no role in their belief. They have their own information independent of the dossier.
 * "The dossier’s existence is rooted in a belief that Trump was compromised, Russian asset."
 * Not in the beginning, but that quickly became a strong suspicion because of evidence found and Trump's own actions. Completely outside of the dossier, other evidence from numerous foreign intelligence agencies found even more suspicious activities by Trump campaign members and Trump associates, so by the time the FBI got the first pages of the dossier, they already had their own evidence and own suspicious. That's why the Crossfire Hurricane investigation did not depend on the dossier. The final report only added mention of it in an addendum. Heck, U.S. intelligence had been getting reports from at least eight foreign allied intelligence agencies about very suspicious activities by Trump campaign people already in 2015, but were unable to open a real investigation until Papadopoulos provided proof that the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of the Russian hacking and theft of emails. No other presidential candidate has worked with an enemy power to get themselves elected. None. This was an alarming first.
 * "insidious origin of this operation per primary sources"
 * "Origin"? We know the origin. It isn't a secret. You have also mentioned primary sources before, but we can't do anything without knowing what those sources are. Feel free to mention them, because I, for one, have sought to use the primary sources which have been mentioned in secondary sources. As long as we're dealing with straight and uncontroversial facts without having to do any interpreting, we can carefully use them without violating OR or our basic rule that all content must primarily be based on secondary and tertiary sources. As long as they don't contradict what secondary sources have said, we're usually on safe ground. If they do, then they have no due weight until secondary sources deal with it.
 * "When a work is discovered to be a fabrication"
 * No such discovery has been made. That is a false allegation. Even the suspicions that the dossier might include Russian disinformation were investigated by the FBI, and the IG report makes clear that no evidence was found that it happened. Yes, it was a danger, and Steele was well aware of that.
 * "the progress on extracting the primary documents is painstakingly slow;"
 * As mentioned above, it would really help if you revealed those primary sources. I'd love to work with you on that. Propose the sources (in a separate thread) and the words in the sources we should include. Then let's work on finding an NPOV way to do it.
 * "to further and prolong the obfuscation"
 * AGF. No one is trying to obfuscate anything. I can't speak for other editors who are free to edit the article, but my refusal to believe the narratives in unreliable and fringe sources is not obfuscation. I read them, but don't use them here because they do obfuscate. They take little bits and blow them out of proportion. They take old news and reframe it as if it was a new and big discovery. I yawn and don't fall for it.
 * "salacious and false accusations"
 * There are two salacious allegations among the myriad other more serious ones. No serious allegations have been proven false, and unproven does not equal false.
 * "that this was a Democratic political operation"
 * Not really. They paid for it, but did not act in its production. Because most of the allegations were unproven at the time, the lawyer was not able to even use it during the election (and therefore didn't even pass on the information to the DNC or Clinton campaign), so it had no effect on the election. Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses (Orbis got $168,000 from that to produce the dossier), and that $168,000 was pretty much wasted money, as far as opposition research goes. It came too late and wasn't corroborated in time to do any good during the campaign.
 * That it was published by BuzzFeed is not the fault of Steele or the DNC/Clinton campaign. (That is the subject of a lawsuit in England right now.) It was never intended for publication. It was a draft document of raw, unfinished, uncorroborated information that got leaked without permission. The corroboration has come later, but much of it cannot be corroborated. That's the nature of the beast. What is said inside a private room may get leaked, but may never be proven because it's not recorded, and the participants won't tell what they said, or, as in the case with the primary subsource and a key subsource, they try to distance themselves from what they said. What's more interesting is when public actions then follow which indicate that what was leaked is accurate. The sources did have access to good information. That's what's happened with lots of this stuff. That isn't absolute proof of what was said in private, but it sure means the leaks are probably true. Valjean (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * So “Trump-Russia dossier” was removed boldly in December 2019, restored soon after. Long-standing consensus is to include, so here we are discussing. There’s no doubt that Steele owns the dossier. There’s no doubt that the article name should be Steele dossier, at this point. That’s irrelevant to whether “Trump-Russia dossier” should be kept. 4,750 news sources for “Trump-Russia dossier”? Sounds more like an argument for inclusion. Seriously, this isn’t going anywhere without an RFC or a NPOVN discussion. Not sure why that isn’t being tried.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , probably because the outcome is pretty obvious. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting to see who will propose a move back to the old page name. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL! I certainly have no plans on doing so, but it's still the most accurate description of the dossier, which may be the reason that certain editors don't like it (an attitude that violates NPOV, thus making the current title suspicious). They'd like to put as much distance between Trump's name and the dossier as possible, even though he's the main subject. -- Valjean (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Steele Dossier (Conspiracy Theory)
Now that we have uncontradicted evidence that the Steele Dossier is a fabrication of unsubstantiated and fanciful claims, rumors, barroom talk, etc., and more importantly, the fundamental source lacks credibility, admits to having no reliable sources, and was under investigation by the FBI as a Russian operative, along with a cabal of FBI characters that facilitated its propagation, I aver, that the title of this article, in symmetry with other articles (such as "Spygate" (conspiracy theory)", should properly be, "Steele Dossier (conspiracy theory)." It is beyond question a conspiracy among the various actors, including, as documented by the FBI internal text messaging server, along with handwritten FBI notes, as well as congressional testimony under oath of "no evidence" (although splash as evidenced in the media), that there was no "Russian collusion" on the Trump campaign part (on the Hillary Clinton campaign, absolutely), and that this Steele Dossier is a Conspiracy Theory documenting a fable that was promulgated by various actors inimical to the Present and attempting to force his ouster from office. We should not shrink from calling it was it is: a conspiracy theory. Tachypaidia (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So sad to read the tortured attempts to cling to propositions that have long since lost even the pretension of truth. Filled with opinions, innuendo, deniability, unnamed sources, et. al. These propositions now are termed so to resist falsification, bar compelling evidence (under a "primary source" objection), denial of contradictory explanations, and an insistence on psychological projection of the Democratic campaign conspiracy with Russian agents (now beyond contestation, although laundered through several intermediates) onto the Trump campaign--the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory are satisfied. I again, with these added reasons, propose the renaming of the article to "Steele Dossier (conspiracy theory) Tachypaidia (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL! I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. That over-the-top narrative does not derive from how RS describe events, but it certainly does mirror how many dots are woven together by unreliable and outright blacklisted sources into a fabric that looks like a false, Trumpian, counter-narrative, ergo a conservative conspiracy theory.
 * The tone of your comments matches this from a discussion forum, IOW an unreliable source: "Everyone in Washington knows that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for the phony Steele Dossier whose main source was a known Russian spy." The Bear Insider. Facts: The dossier is not "phony", Danchenko was not a source, but passed on what sources said (some confirmed by other sources, including independent FBI sources), and he is not "a known Russian spy", but this is the Trumpian narrative believed by his followers. We don't allow such nonsense here, but we do document it exists many times in this article.
 * We do cover many of these matters in the article, but they do not, neither individually nor together, create a whole cloth conspiracy theory narrative in any manner. They only show certain weaknesses and inaccuracies which have been known, or known to be open as possibilities, from the very beginning. Some of them do not affect this article, but affect misuses of the dossier, such as the Carter Page FISA warrants, and then only the last two. That has no bearing on this article. It gets mentioned according to its due weight.
 * Now if there are some newer things that we need to address and maybe include here, please get specific and cite the RS we should use. -- Valjean (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Danchenko was alluded to above, let's discuss him. We already deal with him in this article. He was a primary sub-source, one of many sources used by Steele. That is confirmed by RS. Steele had many other sources, some of whom we know, and Danchenko is one of them. He told Steele about what his network of sub-sources told him. Some of those sub-sources were close associates of Trump, and some had information from deep inside the Kremlin.
 * Like Carter Page, he was suspected of being a Russian agent, but neither one was ever shown to be one. They just had lots of Russian contacts, which makes a lot of sense. Unlike Danchenko, Carter Page's behavior created even more suspicion, because he continued to be openly anti-American and pro-Putin, and he did not heed the warnings and advice of the FBI, and continued to flaunt the rules governing how one should relate to foreign agents. Page even told his Russian agent contacts that the FBI was watching them. That's a big no no.
 * The Inspector General's report describes Danchenko (without naming him) as "Steele's Primary Sub-source, who the FBI found credible." Apparently, their previous investigation of him as a possible Russian agent did not reveal anything suspicious. His actions were always favorable to the interests of the USA.
 * The following content is from the section "Steele's sources":
 * In January 2017, the primary sub-source, later identified as Russian-trained Ukrainian attorney Igor Danchenko, was interviewed for three days by the FBI, and he said that Steele misstated or exaggerated certain information. The FBI found that Igor Danchenko, the Primary sub-source, was "truthful and cooperative", but the Supervisory Intel Analyst said that "it was his impression that the Primary Sub-source may not have been 'completely truthful' and may have been minimizing certain aspects of what he/she told Steele".
 * BBC correspondent Paul Wood wrote that Steele had "20 to 30" sources for the dossier.
 * That information seems relevant. -- Valjean (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That information seems relevant. -- Valjean (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "along with handwritten FBI notes". The following, from a Twitter thread, makes it imperative to discover whether those notes are altered: ""NEW: Attorney for fired former FBI Chief of Counterintelligence, Peter Strozk, allege in court filings that documents purported to be his hand-written notes were altered. He says the notes, which were filed by Ret. Lt. Gen. Flynn's attorneys, include the addition of two dates." "Specifically, Strozk's attorney Aitan Goelman says that the additions were not written by Strozk and were, “apparently designed to indicate the date or dates on which the notes were written." ""On at least one occasion the date added is wrong and could be read to suggest that a meeting at the White House happened before it actually did”, Goelman writes." @Tom_Winter, NBC News Correspondent for Investigations. Focused on Police, Courts, Corruption, Cyber Security, and Counter-terrorism stories in the Eastern U.S."""

Valjean (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have often noted that responses of "LOL" serve as a kind of response tic, a maneuver to avoid facts. While the adage "Facts are stubborn things" is well-known, the "Lack of facts is a stubborn thing" holds true as well. What is remarkable is how bereft of substantive fact this article is. Incidental facts are given innuendo to parlay them into the void facts. Take as an example., the Cohen in Prague allegation, refuted by the Inspector General Horowitz Report and the Special Counsel Mueller report, still it receives a nod of factual credibility from an anonymous, unverified source. In good conspiracy fashion, no thread is too thin to cling to, to defend with the fanciful arguments; and no inconvenient fact exists that some shadow of doubt cannot be cast.
 * From primary sources we are learning, via DNI documents, the FBI Lync communication server, cell phone texts, hand-written notes, etc., the ugly extent of this subterfuge to remove the President. In addition to all that has come to be declassified recently, I would call attention to a primary source of the declassified DNI letter of John Ratcliffe, where is identified:
 * (a) In July 2016, US Intelligence obtained insight that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to "stir up a scandal" against Trump by tying him to Russian hacking.
 * (b) CIA Director Brennan briefed Obama on July 26, 2016, that Hillary Clinton approved a proposal to "vilify Trump" by claiming inference by Russian security forces.
 * (c) On September 7, 2016 US Intelligence forward a referral to Comey and Strzok that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to portray Trump working with Russian hackers to interfer with the election "as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server."
 * These are certainly sufficient predicate to initiate an investigation to obtain the full facts, but, in true conspiracy fashion, these facts, as part of the DOJ Durham criminal inquiry, are called instead, "a conspiracy theory."
 * Wikipedia is built on a reliance on reliable secondary sources, but it has proven that in the case of government corruption, where the MSM is complicit is the receipt of leaks and propagation of the government line, "reliable" sources are compromised, the premise of Wikipedia fails.
 * Recourse to primary sources is essential in vetting the Steele Dossier (conspiracy theory) specifically, and Crossfire Hurricane in general. Tachypaidia (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to create your own Internet encyclopedia in which you may set whatever rules you wish for sourcing. So long as you choose to edit Wikipedia instead, you are required to abide by our sourcing policies and guidelines. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Silly. Primary sources are allowed in the Talk section, and this goes specifically towards informing use of secondary sources. It is the lack of use of primary sources that accounts for the poor vetting of secondary sources. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Graham subpoenas FBI for documents
Lindsey Graham has gone rogue and subpoened documents related to the dossier: "On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) claimed that a newly declassified document showed that in 2018, FBI officials lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the reliability of information in a dossier of Trump’s alleged Russia ties compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.... But Graham took those steps without consulting with the Senate Intelligence Committee itself.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats on that panel believe FBI officials lied to them as Graham alleged,..."

This story has been covered extensively in fringe and unreliable sources with lots of spin, but this is the first mention in a RS that I've seen. Let's see how this plays out, as it may end up being worthy of inclusion here. At issue is the fringe focus on certain uncertainties and imperfections in the dossier and certainly less than ideal(!) way it was used (misused) for the last two FISA applications aimed at Carter Page, while the fringe ignores the more certain elements in the dossier and lots of other evidence that implicates Trump and his campaign in their cooperation with Russian interference, which is in line with other allegations in the dossier. That collusion is ongoing right now. This effort by Graham and his allies is a distraction technique that works on some. -- Valjean (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't characterize falsifying and manipulating information to a secret court with no oversight "less than ideal," and it certainly isn't a rogue move to seek information to figure out if the FBI lied to the Senate. Also certain committee chairpeople do not need any permission to issue subpoena's, in fact both sides do it regularly.
 * Per the article "The inspector general found serious problems with the FBI’s handling of requests for the surveillance warrants" - does that not warrant some sort of oversight? Who else would do it and make sure it wouldn't happen again? Imagine if the Trump administration was doing that to the Biden campaign. If it turns out FBI officials lied about the reliability of the dossier to Senate Intelligence Committee then yes that would certainly be notable for inclusion here.
 * By the way Mueller looked intensively at the so called Trump collusion with Russia, and did not find evidence that supported any sort of charges. There is no evidence of ongoing collusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , neither would I, but since we now have solid evidence that any "manipulation" was inconsequential and the FISA warrant - which was not based solely on Steele anyway - was justified, I think this falls into the criticism of FISA that has been a constant theme among liberals almost since the passing of the Act itself. Put simply, the FISA court pretty much never declines a request for a warrant. It acts as a rubber stamp.
 * Your "no collusion" Republican talking point is duly noted, but anyone who has read the Mueller report (rather than Barr's fraudulent Cliff's Notes version) knows it to be bullshit. He found no criminal conspiracy but criminal conspiracy is a high bar, and the two main reasons for not finding criminal conspiracy were (a) Trump's relentless obstruction of justice and (b) Don Jr. being too dumb to crime: he can plausibly claim that he did not know it was wrong to collude with Russia, because with his background you would not expect him to have the basic level of awareness of ethics that would be required in order to realise it. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously any "falsifying and manipulating" of information should be investigated. Clinesmith is in trouble, and rightly so, and the last two FISA warrants have been declared invalid (or something like that). That is an issue for the FISA process, and has no bearing on the dossier itself. It was misused in that instance.
 * If "FBI officials lied about the reliability of the dossier to Senate Intelligence Committee", then that should be examined and we may well end up including that here. Right now that is an allegation and distraction that is part of the narrative used in the ongoing cover-up of Trump's misdeeds. Politicians will be politicians. The counter-narrative is indeed a cover-up. That's how the Durham investigation has been described in RS.
 * Conspiracy is not the same as co-operation/collusion. The dossier alleges "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation". The first was not proven, while the second is plainly obvious. So the GOP gives lots of attention to the unproven "conspiracy" while ignoring the proven "co-operation". Whether there was a conspiracy in the background is really secondary to what actually happened, and collusion happened and is still happening. Trump still refuses to condemn Russian interference or even acknowledge it. He refuses to condemn Putin's putting bounties on the heads of our soldiers. He refuses to criticize Putin at all. He said that he wouldn't necessarily report to the FBI any offers of help from Russia. That's just wrong.
 * It's always worrying when a candidate is not liked by our allies and liked by our enemies, and that candidate then gets elected. That situation should tell us to reject that candidate because they are obviously seen by our enemies as helpful to them and damaging to American interests, and that is indeed what has happened. -- Valjean (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Factcheck of Valjean: "He refuses to condemn Putin's putting bounties on the heads of our soldiers." That was fake news and unproved by this day intelligence. "He said that he wouldn't necessarily report to the FBI any offers of help from Russia." This is a lie, he said that he will report it to FBI after he will read it himself if it will be important. Also as a President he can not report it to DOJ that FBI is just a part of. He must report it to NSA or CIA considering the level of threat. "not liked by our allies and liked by our enemies" all people that colluded  from Russia did not like Trump AND Putin. All of them are on Facebook. "and the last two FISA warrants have been declared invalid (or something like that)" That ommits that FISA court also banned DOJ and FBI officials involved in spying on Trump compaign from seeking further FISA applications https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/public-filings/corrected-opinion-and-order "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT no DOJ or FBI personnel under disciplinary or criminal review relating to their work on FISA applications shall participate in drafting, verifying, reviewing, or submitting such applications to the Court. Any finding of misconduct relating to the handling of FISA applications shall be promptly reported to the Court." 2A00:1FA0:20D:83D:78B1:8D20:A7F9:D2DE (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By "fake news" you mean it was not on Fox. The facts appear to be established. The truth about the FISA court is that it has long been a rubber stamp for warrants conjured up out of thin air. At least Carter Page is as shady as fuck, many of the people against whom FISA warrants are issued are only guilty of "wrongthink". Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't recommend this as a RS, this link does contain some good stuff about why the FBI was justified in surveilling Carter Page. See here. Like Trump, Page creates justified suspicion, and then RS document when they repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. Blame them, not the dossier or RS. -- Valjean (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By "fake news" you mean it was not on Fox. The facts appear to be established. The truth about the FISA court is that it has long been a rubber stamp for warrants conjured up out of thin air. At least Carter Page is as shady as fuck, many of the people against whom FISA warrants are issued are only guilty of "wrongthink". Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't recommend this as a RS, this link does contain some good stuff about why the FBI was justified in surveilling Carter Page. See here. Like Trump, Page creates justified suspicion, and then RS document when they repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. Blame them, not the dossier or RS. -- Valjean (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020
The Russian woman, a lawyer who reached out to arrange the hotel meeting with Donald Trump Jr. was working for Fusion GPS, which Glenn Simpson verified in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.Apparently Glenn Simpson met with this same Russian woman lawyer the night before the hotel meeting for dinner and then again the next evening after the infamous hotel meeting.Glenn Simpson has denied coordinating the infamous hotel meeting, although evidence of the prior and subsequent evening dinners clearly dispute that assertion. The Mueller report states that during this meeting Jared Kushner, who was present sent a text message 'Set Up'. Jared also told Mueller's investigators he believed the meeting was a set up. Dr.42069 (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Aquillion (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd sure like to see if RS have mentioned anymore about this than we already have. If so, it's relevant for the Trump Tower meeting article, although it already mentions this without any conspiracy theory spin. Fusion GPS had many other clients, and political "sides" made no difference. They worked for Americans, Russians, Democrats, and Republicans. Between 2014 and 2016, together with Bruce Ohr, Steele cooperated with the FBI's and Justice Department's unsuccessful efforts to flip Deripaska, and Steele had to cultivate Deripaska in that effort. -- Valjean (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert Draper wrote yesterday...
Many of these [dossier claims were never substantiated or were later disproved outright]

Maybe he has nonpublic information to support that, but I still don't see public information showing that anything in the dossier has been proven false. soibangla (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Steele said he believes that 70–90% of the dossier is accurate, although he gives the "golden showers" allegation a 50% chance of being true, so there has never been any claim or belief that it was all accurate. It also depends on what one means with "refuted". A couple claims have been called false in a court case, but without evidence that they actually were false. IIRC, one may well be wrong as it uses the wrong dates, thus implying that Putin was deputy mayor of Saint Petersburg before (or after?) he actually was. That would be a timing error, and thus "false". We don't know, but the cash may have been delivered to Putin at a different time. There is another error which implies there was a Russian consulate in Miami. These are minor errors.
 * In July 2020, Justice Warby from the Queen’s Bench Division of the British High Court of Justice ordered Orbis to pay damages to Aven and Fridman who Steele claimed had delivered "large amounts of illicit cash" to Vladimir Putin when Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. Judge Warby ruled that the claim was "inaccurate and misleading"[5] and awarded the damages to compensate "for the loss of autonomy, distress and reputational damage caused by the breaches of duty". The judge stated that Steele's dossier also inaccurately claimed that Aven and Fridman provided foreign policy advice to Putin.[420]
 * Many claims remain unproven, such as the pee tape, Cohen in Prague, etc. Both may be true and have not been proven false. Trump and Cohen lied repeatedly about both claims. They were unforced and unnecessary lies, making one wonder why they lied. That type of lie is normally considered evidence of consciousness of guilt. Comey, an expert in lie detection, was originally a completely doubter of the pee tape, but after speaking with Trump and being lied to, he became a "maybe peeliever".
 * So far the red thread and main allegations have proven true. There was co-operation between the Trump campaign and Russia in its successful election interference to help Trump win. Many of Trump associates and campaign aides had myriad illicit and secret contacts with Russians, and they lied about it. All that is proven. So all the investigations were justified by their own actions in creating justified suspicion of wrongdoing. -- Valjean (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point the Cohen in Prague and the pee tape are fringe topics that nobody considers or takes seriously. Mueller dismissed the Cohen in Prague, so continuing to insist that it still may be true is simply fringe.
 * Carter Page did not meet with Igor Sechin and the allegations of the Rosneft privatization turned out to not be true (that section is mainly drawn from Luke Harding's reporting, which does not largely hold up anymore). Steele's main sub-source was not in Russia and disavowed the dossier, saying that Steele exaggerated or misstated much of the dossier. I wish that we could have more neutral eyes on this, and better up-to-date reporting.
 * Another recent NYT article called the dossier "deeply flawed." Is that the impression a reader would get after reading our article? On what standing do we as editors have to disagree with RS, especially solid RS such as the NYT? This article needs a major rewrite using current sourcing. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The document is exactly what you'd expect from a dossier prepared by a former head of MI6's Russia desk. By that I mean, as a former spy, he no longer has access to some of the covert sources that could confirm things like reports of cellphone pings.
 * This is in line with the article: Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated,[28][29] in particular its main allegations that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton[30][22] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians.[31][32] However, many allegations in the dossier remain unverified, and one allegation against Michael Cohen was dismissed by the Mueller Report.[33] The Daily Telegraph has reported that anonymous sources believe Russian intelligence agencies may have sought to create doubt about the veracity of the dossier.[34].
 * Note that last sentence, and be aware that some of the sources you are reading may be subject to active Russian disinformation. The article currently appears correct: some aspects have been corroborated, others have not, and a few have been shown to be wrong (seemingly in line with the confidence limits that Steele stated).
 * And the relentless focus on the dossier is of course a part of the disinformation campaign. Republican former prosecutor and former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III investigated the circumstances around the Trump campaign and found that Russia had targeted the 2016 election, as it is targeting the 2020 election; that it had done so in support of Trump (consistent with Putin's goal of spreading chaos in the West); that Russia hacked the Clinton campoaign's email servers and released material through WikiLeaks; that the Trump campaign was aware of some of this and welcomed it. He found that Trump lied about not planning a hotel in Moscow, that senior Trump campaign staffers met with Russian nationals at Trump Tower over compromising material the Russians had on Hillary; and that multiple senior Trump campaign staffers lied to Federal investigators and/or Congress about their contacts with Russia. Mueller also found multiple instances of criminal behaviour, issued 37 indictments, several of which have resulted in jail time, and documented extensive obstruction by Trump.
 * Against that background you go into the 2020 election cycle knowing that Russia is again targeting US elections, that they have compromised the electoral systems of several States, that their social media disinformation is continuing, and at the same time Trump is continuing to deliver Russian foreign policy objectives, and has obstructed Congress by instructing staff to refuse to testify. So both obstruction and interference continue unchecked - unsurprisingly, since in fact Trump has been campaigning for 2020 pretty much since the 2016 election.
 * Under the circumstances, it is easy to see why most of the world considers the Steele dossier to be a sideshow that has long since ceased to be relevant, since Mueller provided much more detail and with a much more solid factual grounding that one former intelligence officer could muster. And it's equally easy to see why the right would like to discredit the Steele dossier because that is a lot easier than discrediting Mueller (they tried and failed on that), so by talking up the significance of Steel in the "oranges" they hope to wave away the findings of Mueller as "fruit of the poisonous tree", even though the Steele dossier played an extremely limited part in initiating the investigations: as we say in the article, [t]he media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not address the recent reporting by the NYT, and others, that call the dossier "deeply flawed" and that "many of these [dossier] claims were never substantiated or were later disproved outright." That's from the NYT, and I hope the Russians weren't directing the NYT to run those words.
 * Assessing this article now, it is way too long and goes into minute detail that isn't necessary, and still gives hints of credence to claims that have never had any sort of proof put forward in support. Sure, the dossier said Russia wanted Trump to win and there was contact between the campaign and Russians, but those were common themes at the time reported on by many other, more reputable sources.
 * What should be of greater concern is how the FBI, which knew about the issues in the dossier, still used it (and other manipulated evidence), to investigate a presidential campaign. How many have now testified that if they knew then what they knew now they would have never signed off on some of those investigative actions? I saw Rosenstein and Yates both say that. Can you imagine if Trump's administration and FBI used Ukranian disinformation to investigate Biden in such a sweeping fashion? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, the FBI has been always skeptical of sources, especially relating to Russia, contrary to the cartoonish narrative that they’re morons who immediately and eagerly bought into it lock, stock and barrel because they wanted to believe it. They run with what they can independently verify, or if new information like the dossier corroborates what they already knew. And so far, they haven’t said a word about what, if anything, they were able to refute.soibangla (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the current content is not in any way contradicted by the NYT piece.
 * The idea that without Steele there is no Muewller is a Republican talking point, but it's contradicted by the facts. Steele formed no part of Mueller's findings, and little if any part of the "oranges".
 * And I don't have to imagine if Trump's administration and FBI used Ukranian disinformation to investigate Biden in such a sweeping fashion - John Durham is doing it right now. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody has made that point. The fact is that without Steele there is no FISA for Carter Page (per Horowitz "central and essential"). That and the recent reporting - per NYT deeply flawed and never substantiated or disproved outright - is not reflected accurately in the current article, which mainly draws on outdated reports that have not held up. To see you now attack Durham is pretty disappointing, as the man has a stellar reputation earned from a career of solid work, with bipartisan acclaim. Who should Wikipedia readers trust more? An anonymous British Wikipedia editor or a 35 year veteran of the US DoJ? On some articles it is really funny who holds the power. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But we don't know exactly what in the dossier was central and essential to the Page warrant request. Because some insist without proof that the dossier was 100% false, it's easy for them to conclude the FBI relied on false information. But we still don't know exactly what they referenced in the warrant request and the extent to which they vouched for its veracity via their own sources/methods. It is imperative to the Trump defense that they insist that the dossier is 100% false and that any use of it is proof of corruption, and so naturally they have repeated that dubious mantra until his supporters have accepted it as established fact. soibangla (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the alternative history approach, eh? No, there were at least FOUR FISA warrants against Page, plus the ones in 2014. Page has deep ties to corrupt Russians. and the Page warrants are a sideshow anyway. The FBI doesn't launch huge intelligence operations based on oppo research. The "oranges" start with Papadopulos' indiscreet chat with the Australian diplomat in London (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html).
 * The entire alternative "oranges" narrative depends on ignoring the fact that both Trump and pretty much everyone who worked for him are as shady AF. As the saying goes, no smoke without fire. And in this case if there had been no fire, it would have been the most smoke without an actual fire in the entire history of smoke and fires. Steele was just one piece of a jigsaw. And not an edge, either. Just a nondescript bit int he middle. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Steele Dossier, not Papadopoulos or oranges. The bulk of recent analysis of the dossier has concluded there were major issues that were not publicly known at the time. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mueller dismissed the Cohen in Prague citing only Cohen’s statements to the Mueller team. soibangla (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ernie, WP:NOTFORUM. DOJ personnel are not RS. In fact, in this instance, the mainstream tends to portray them as pathetic and irrelevant tools of a corrupt maladministration of their duties. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , funny that this thread is running just as the Senate confirmed that Manafort's buddy Kilimnik is a Russian agent who was likely behind the email hacks. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 👀 Yup. Thing is, I watch a lot of Fox News. It's all on my DVR. I don't need another replay when I come here trying to do some work. Watching Fox is good. Watching only Fox, not so good. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The SSCI Report also stated "Other than the dossier's assertions that Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016 and served as a foreign policy adviser to Trump - facts which were readily available in news reports at the time of their inclusion in the dossier - the Committee did not find any information that corroborates the
 * allegations related to Page in the dossier." The article does not accurately reflect the recent RS characterizations of the large issues with the dossier. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What RS have you read Ernie?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT called it "deeply flawed" - and linked in the first comment of this thread "Many of these [dossier] claims were never substantiated or were later disproved outright." You can also read Wemple's opinion here. Actually that entire series is worth a look. I wholeheartedly agree with and endorse the WaPo media critic's close - "And like most important stories, Russia-Trump is a complicated one. On one hand, there was a load of investigative stories — including the Pulitzer entries of the Times and The Post — that found corroboration in the reports of Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee. On the other hand, there was credulous and irresponsible dossier boosterism, as practiced by certain outlets — a disgraceful chapter for which there has been little public reckoning." Mr Ernie (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thought experiment: remove the Steele dossier entirely form history, and what changes? Pretty much nothing: the FBI knew about Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos, Stone and the rest of the clown bus without any external information. The whole right-wing brouhaha about Steel is, and always has been, an attempt by the bank robbers to pretend the bank robbery never happened because they were only doing 33 in a 30 limit when they were pulled over and the trunk full of stolen money discovered. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes that's a nice thought experiment, but it doesn't change the fact that the Steele dossier does exist, and our article doesn't describe the recent re-characterizations of it accurately per RS? Writing this article correctly does not alter anything the FBI achieved in the investigation. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , a couple of sources characterise it thus. Most do not. And the real problem is the Trumpistas fighting (as usual) the wrong enemy. If Trump were vaguely competent he could have made something of the FBI's tendency to credulous acceptance of anything provided by their friends. That is a problem that needs fixing, though the Steele thing is entirely the wrong way of fixing it(because everybody Steele fingered is a crook). The FISA courts are also a nightmare. It's bizarre that at the same time as trying to wave away Flynn's confession to lies that were material, they are prosecuting Clinesmith for pretty routine exaggerations that in any case almost certainly had no effect. FISA courts approve 99.97% of applications . That fucking sucks. A competent politician could have made hay with that. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , from the NYT, "The report by the special counsel who took over the Russia investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, found that Mr. Cohen never traveled to Prague." That's about as plain of language as is possible. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ernie, we need logical relevant basis for your view. Read RS coverage of the Senate report. No cherry picking and no outdated straw persons.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I sent emails to Draper, Savage and Goldman, explaining:
 * We’ll see if any respond. Some NYT reporters are quite responsive (eg, Haberman and Baker), others not so much. soibangla (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * McClatchy reported that anonymous persons found that the cell towers were pinged, but that's just nitpicking, isn't it? Anyways, hopefully the reporters respond to you. Would you please share the results if they do? Thanks for doing that. SPECIFICO, it's not just my view - I've linked RS supporting what I've said. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We’ll see if any respond. Some NYT reporters are quite responsive (eg, Haberman and Baker), others not so much. soibangla (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * McClatchy reported that anonymous persons found that the cell towers were pinged, but that's just nitpicking, isn't it? Anyways, hopefully the reporters respond to you. Would you please share the results if they do? Thanks for doing that. SPECIFICO, it's not just my view - I've linked RS supporting what I've said. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * McClatchy reported that anonymous persons found that the cell towers were pinged, but that's just nitpicking, isn't it? Anyways, hopefully the reporters respond to you. Would you please share the results if they do? Thanks for doing that. SPECIFICO, it's not just my view - I've linked RS supporting what I've said. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Spectator?
I reverted content sourced to The Spectator, which has a yellow rating at Perennial Sources with the text "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG." SPECIFICO reverted my revert with the aspersion "undo POV deletion of RS content." I believe that material should be removed per poor sourcing unless something better can be found. The cited source puts forward many opinions and should be treated as such, in line with the guidance at RS/Perennial Sources. Thoughts? Adding sig Mr Ernie (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One thought is—sign your post.😏 The article is written by an award-winning BBC journalist. It seems to me to be light in opinion, so I don't see any problem using it. - MrX 🖋 21:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

well there's this
but...

soibangla (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting that. Further evidence that the dossier has big issues that we do not accurately convey. How do we proceed? How do we incorporate the above and also steer the article to recent RS comments like "deeply flawed?" How do we cut down some of the fluff that is not needed? Mr Ernie (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , as noted multiple times before, the Steele dossier represents essentially unfiltered reports from multiple sources, with some commentary as to Steele's personal opinion of their reliability or otherwise as sources. It's an opposition research document, not an FBI report. The FBI did not act on any information from Steele without first corroborating it.
 * The right's approach to Steele has consistently been: we were only doing 33 in a 30 limit so you had no right to pull us over, and the trunk full of stolen money you found was fruit of the poisonous tree so go arrest the guy who called the cops. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why make this a red vs blue thing? It does not help anything. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , "The FBI did not act on any information from Steele without first corroborating it." I'm not sure that's accurate. I understand the scope and depth of the investigation in general, but that should not stop us from improving this article. That will have no effect on the Russia investigation coverage overall. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, let's frame it differently: according to the FBI and numerous independent reporters, the FBI did not act on anything from the Steele dossier without corroborating it, but Uncle Frank from Arkansas disagrees and cites in support a number of tweets from people with a direct line to Q. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's still not accurate. Have you seen the recent Yates testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee? She stated she would not have acted on the recommendations if she had known about the deeper issues in the Dossier. That is critical to point out. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Private intelligence"?
First sentence: "The Steele dossier, also known as the Trump–Russia dossier,[1][2][3] is a private intelligence political opposition research report written from June to December 2016..."

Later:


 * "written for the private investigative firm Fusion GPS."
 * "Fusion GPS hired Orbis Business Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm"

Do we lose anything by deleting "private intelligence" from the first sentence? It's pretty clumsy there. We can use the Private intelligence agency wikilink for the later mentions of Fusion GPS and Orbis. -- Valjean (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Edit summary: Removing awkward and superfluous mention in first sentence, per talk. We don't need to cram every possible adjective in that first sentence. -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of connection between content in Senate Intelligence Committee report and dossier
I see that Mr Ernie has removed my edit with this edit summary: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steele_dossier&diff=976561219&oldid=976559488 Why is Boot's opinion applicable? This article is already WAY too long and we don't need to keep adding opinions of commentators who do not like Trump.]''

What policy-based reason is there for removing that content? It implies that Boot's opinion is not "applicable", despite it speaking directly to a point made in the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee's report, something that is NEW information. It just so happens that opinions in RS, when properly attributed, are totally allowable content, especially when they are completely on-topic and do the synthesis we are not allowed to do as editors. That's why we treasure such content.

Another implication in that edit summary is that only the opinions of those who like Trump should be allowed, despite the fact that there are myriad such opinions in the article that reflect very negatively on the dossier and Steele, and favorably to Trump, Putin, Russian interference in the election, and Trump's co-operation with those efforts.

In fact, the Senate Committee's Report has this to say (which fully corroborates the key dossier allegation that there was "co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership":

"The Trump Campaign's Cooperation with Russia (U) The Committee's bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump Campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. It recounts efforts by Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates actively sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact and rewarding its perpetrators even after being warned of its Russian origins. And it presents, for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a Russian intelligence officer. (U) These are stubborn facts that cannot be ignored. They build on the Committee's bipartisan findings in Volume 2 and Volume 4 that show an extensive Kremlin-directed effort to covertly help candidate Trump in 2016, and they speak to a willingness by a major party candidate and his associates, in the face of a foreign adversary's assault on the political integrity of the United States, to welcome that foreign threat in exchange for advancing their own self-interest. ...when self-interest promotes the known Russian effort while also being promoted by that same Russian effort, then self-interest and Russia's interest become one and the same ...the deep counterintelligence vulnerability that is created when those who seek positions of great power, or proximity to that power, are willing to trade away national security for personal gain. ...There is good reason that such individuals are Putin's preferred interlocutors. ...Nevertheless, the facts above...clearly show that what did happen between Russia and the Trump Campaign in 2016 is far worse than has been publicly revealed thus far. ...Indeed, Russia is actively interfering again in the 2020 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump, and some of the President's associates are amplifying those efforts. (U) It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report that the Russian intelligence services assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era. Senate Intelligence Committee report (emphasis added)"

You can't have it both ways. Either cite policy-based reasoning (IOW not partisan reasoning) or leave policy-compliant edits alone.

I am NOT saying that the content can't be improved. I'd welcome efforts to improve it, but deletionism without policy-based reasoning is not constructive, especially when dealing with new information from the highest levels. -- Valjean (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I want to have a more substantive discussion with you about this, but am time limited at the moment. My baseline point is that this article is currently a LOT longer than the article on WW2, and I am certain this doesn't need to be the case. In fact, this is one of the longer articles that we have on Wikipedia. A lot of commentators have opinions about the Dossier, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. I think we could cut 2/3 of the information from the article and not lose the core message. The biggest problem I see with what you are doing is that you add and add as knowledge develops, but don't prune back other sections where appropriate. For instance, regarding the infamous pee tape, the section devotes nearly 1,200 words but the cited sources (Feinberg) conclude that it is fake. Why do we have to say so many words about something with no evidence? That should be the end of it. RS conclude this is a bogus issue but the article is bloated to include every possibility that it still may be true. That has to change. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I welcome such a discussion. The pee tape allegation is certainly the one that has the most weight per RS coverage, but it has not been proven fake. It may or may not exist. We just don't know for sure, but Trump and Cohen made efforts to find and squash it (why do that if it didn't exist?), and Trump lied repeatedly about it (unforced and unnecessary lies), so the experts think there might be something to it. The content which you just deleted was not about the pee tape, but about other sexual affairs while married.
 * Right now you do not have any policy-based reasons for your deletion, so please self-revert and we can discuss it here. -- Valjean (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My policy based reason for reversion is that Boot's opinion is UNDUE given the length of this article. Regarding the pee tape, Feinberg concluded it was fake, and there are no substantive sources saying it is real. This article as written still offers that possibility, despite so existing source saying otherwise. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , UNDUE is a matter of judgment, and I think it merits inclusion because Boot is drawing a straight line between two points, to reach the obvious conclusion. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mr Ernie. The argument Valjean presented, The pee tape allegation is certainly the one that has the most weight per RS coverage, but it has not been proven fake. It may or may not exist, is explained well in Argument from ignorance, relative to why it doesn't belong. Don't we also have an essay about it? It is not a policy based argument - it's gossip and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia per WP:NOT. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 22:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , of course you do. So: reasonable people may differ. That means no policy-based reason to exclude. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment doesn't make sense. I did give a policy based reason. What is your policy based reason for including it per ONUS? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 03:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, that's a !vote. Policy does not forbid inclusion. Max Boot is a significant voice with relevant experience writing in a respected publication so this handily passes WP:RSOPINION. It's not like we're citing Ben Shapiro writing on Breitbart or something. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree and with good reason. To begin, (1) Boot cited a WaPo article that barely gave this small, insignificant piece of tabloid gossip passing mention, (2) it is not related to or mentioned in any of the memos in the actual Steele dossier, (3) none of it is substantiated, and (4) it's sad that the Senate intel committee report is being used in an attempt to validate the Steele dossier's fabrications and misinformation. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 22:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The findings of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee are many (above we have exact findings that would justify accusations of treason), but in the context of this thread, we're dealing with its mentions of Russian kompromat on Trump in the form of various sexual matters in Russia, including sexual affairs while he was married. That stuff is always good blackmail material.
 * Agreed that it is undue and basically WP:COATRACK. I am not seeing anything special drawn from his conclusions and does not carry enough weight for an opinion article to make claims like that about a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Boot is an expert in this arena, and his opinion clarify's points in this article. I don't see how this is a COATRACK. If the article is too long, that is a good reason for looking for cuts. It is not a good reason to stop new additions unless their 'dueness' is lower than material already in the article. Frankly, I think the pee tape stuff could be removed or greatly reduced. O3000 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is coatrack because every news of the day that has steele dossier in the article gets thrown in regardless of it's value as demonstrated here. I do not see an opinion column by Boot as particularly impactful on the subject or shed any new light on the subject. Textbook undue fluff. Also when the author of the piece is a member of the "Never Trump movement" we need to be careful using their opinions to describe a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "every news of the day that has steele dossier in the article gets thrown in regardless of it's value".?? Wow! Are you really aware of how many mentions there are every day, and how few contain anything worthwhile? It's pretty rare that that happens, so you might want to temper your false accusations against another editor. -- Valjean (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Max Boot is a distinguished expert in foreign relations and a life long conservative. I don't think you should just stamp a label on him and use that to disregard what he says. O3000 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if we qualify his statement to give the appropriate context, something like "Anti-Trump activist Max Boot says X". Though when it is put like that you can see why using him as a source is silly. PackMecEng (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want strike that BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources. I didn't think it was nessicary given that he is one of the few named on the Never Trump movement page that I linked before but there ya go. PackMecEng (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's largely a by-product of a small number of users constantly trying to remove anything that makes it seem credible, so people add sources to defend the content. Most of us view the Steele thing as a briefly-relevant part of the conservative narrative against Mueller. Most ongoing coverage is either trying to pretend that because Steele did not have JPEGS of the golden shower, thus the entire Mueller report and all his indictments and convictions should be torn up, or pointing out that no, that is not how any of this works. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * it's more than a small number of users, but regardless, the ONUS to keep challenged material is on the editor(s) who wants to restore it. Most of us are woke about the fabrications in the dossier, and the biased media's attempts to keep kicking this dead horse. Editors who oppose inclusion are supported by WP:PAG, and we have cited multiple RS that support the fact that the dossier included fabrications and discredited allegations, including the pee tape:
 * Slate's investigation is quite convincing, and as far as proving a negative, James Randi explains it much better than I.
 * The NYTimes: The F.B.I. was warned a third time in 2017, apparently by a different source, who said that someone with ties to both Mr. Trump and Russia had claimed that reporting in the dossier about Mr. Trump’s activities in Moscow during a 2013 trip was false and the product of Russian intelligence services infiltrating Mr. Steele’s source network. (The dossier contained lurid allegations about Mr. Trump and prostitutes during that trip.)
 * CBS article: "The (redacted) stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of Steele's reporting and assessed that the referenced subset was part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate US foreign relations."
 * CBS interview with AG Barr.
 * WSJ article, 8 July 2020: A London judge on Wednesday ordered the former British spy Christopher Steele’s intelligence firm to pay damages to two Russian bankers, finding that Mr. Steele had reported inaccurately in his discredited 2016 dossier on Donald Trump that the pair had arranged payoffs to Vladimir Putin during the 1990s.
 * WSJ editorial board article: Steele Dossier Disinformation Update New evidence that the FBI was duped by Russian intelligence.
 * ABC report: Newly released material raises the possibility that Russian disinformation made its way into a dossier of opposition research that the FBI relied on when applying for warrants to eavesdrop on a former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump.
 * The material has been challenged & removed, and the editor who wants to restore it needs to acquire consensus. I suggest starting an RfC. There are multiple issues with this article starting with sensationalism in the lead that is noncompliant with NPOV and MOS:Lead and should be removed - specifically the sensationalized Guardian quote - but first things first. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 04:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , and several of us support it, it passes RSOPINION, so there's no policy-based reason to exclude it, regardless of your quote mining. You fundamentally misunderstand what the document was, in a way that the FBI did not.It is not a sworn statement, a legal work product. It is opposition research framed as reports from sources with commentary on the reliability of those sources: it's a "here's where to look" document, not a "here's where the bodies are buried" document. But of course we will likely never have the full truth because Rosenstein canned the counter-intelligence investigation. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy based reason for exclusion is UNDUE, as has been stated repeatedly. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The titles of the section (Kompromat and "Golden showers" allegation) and subsection (Trump viewed as under Putin's influence) show why I placed that content there, because the Senate report deals with both, and Max Boot explicitly connects those dots in a clear manner. That's what makes it extremely on-topic and due, because, as he puts it, "This is the first confirmation from any branch of the U.S. government that rumors of Russian kompromat on Trump — a central feature of the infamous Steele Dossier — may have some basis in fact."

I don't see any legitimate way to not see this content as very relevant, especially in that subsection. It's also relevant, with slightly different wording, elsewhere in this and other articles. I suspect that the evidence of deletionism we're seeing here, contrasted with untried legitimate attempts to constructively improve the content, would be very damaging in any AE proceedings, especially when seen in the light of several existing threats of renewed tbans. Why not just try to be constructive, rather than obstructive? All content can be improved, and I'd love to hear suggestions. -- Valjean (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This edit/view is clearly on the subject, well referenced, important and explicitly attributed. It should definitely stay. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well referenced? A primary source and an opinion article from a never-Trumper is not what I would call well referenced. Also not explicitly attributed since it is not clear that the person saying it is, again, a never-Trumper. Could you please elaborate on your opinion? PackMecEng (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that sourced views by historians (such as Max Boot) about Stelee dossier belong to this page, very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes he is a military historian. That does not address anything I asked or concerns about the never-Trump stuff. Nor is it particularly relevant to the subject he is being quoted here for. PackMecEng (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Perennial sources, WaPo is an RS. Moreover, Max Boot qualify as an expert on the subject. A reliably sourced view by an expert belongs to the page. "never-Trump stuff". ??? What WP policy are you talking about? My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * NPOV would be the policy for that. Why on earth would we use an opinion from the opposition without qualification to make statements about a BLP!? It boggles the mind. Yes WaPo is a RS that is not the issue, no one said it was? Though if you want to go down that road please read the whole statement at RSP, Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website. How is a military historian an expert on the subject? Also you keep skipping over the primary source. PackMecEng (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an official publication/column by Washington Post, not a blog. Yes, this is a sourced view by an author we have a big page about . He is not a fringe author, but someone with an expertise, so I do not see a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note in the URL and at the top of the article where it says opinions. That means it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG. That is why that note exists on RSP. This is basic shit man, what the heck? PackMecEng (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that some online newspapers have blogs where every reader can post an opinion. But this is NOT one of them. Here is relevant policy. All three components of the RS (including the author and the publisher) are fine. My very best wishes (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSBLOG & WP:PRIMARY. You are still not understanding what the WaPo article is or the use of a primary source in the middle. Until you can do that I think we are done here, but I do appropriate you taking the time to talk with me. PackMecEng (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this can be regarded as a personal view by author (hence the explicit attribution), but why a primary source? This is an analysis of other sources, primary and secondary by author. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. I don't think that anyone disputes that Boot's opinion column is his opinion and analysis, but it is neither WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources generally offer an insider's view of an event, and WP:PRIMARY exists as a shortcut to remind us that we are not to use our own analysis to interpret primary sources, or make novel conclusions about them. - MrX 🖋 17:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this material should remain in the article Max Boot is an expert, so his analysis of recent events concerning Trump's relationship with Putin is very relevant to this subject. It ties in to other reporting:
 * SENATE REPORT SHOWS WHAT MUELLER MISSED ABOUT TRUMP AND RUSSIA - The Intercept
 * Pentagon brass "have a duty to go on the record’ after Trump denies shocking new military scandal - Salon - MrX 🖋 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, The Intercept clearly states: While it debunks the so-called Steele Dossier, which was highlighted by a wild accusation that Trump had two women urinate on his bed in his Moscow hotel room in 2013,... What you appear to be overlooking is the fact that this article is about the Steele dossier, not the information that other/further investigations have uncovered about Donald Trump. It does not belong in this article. It is a scandal which is nothing more than gossip at this point; therefore BLP is at play. This is not the Donald Trump article, it is the Steele dossier and we don't add material that is unrelated to the dossier in this article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 12:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all interrelated. Were you going to let the other editors here know about this post that you made on Bradv's talk page? - MrX 🖋 12:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand what you intend with The Intercept piece, which as Atsme noted, directly and succinctly states that the Senate Report "debunks the so-called Steele Dossier." If you are making the point that the current tenor of this article is outdated and not supported by recent RS re-assessments (such as the NYT article calling it "deeply flawed"), then I agree with you. I don't understand the Salon article's relevance to the Steele Dossier, but I should note that many people are saying that the anonymous sources in the Atlantic Piece go on the record. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article should be updated whenever a previous assumption or assertion is shown to be incorrect, or when new information surfaces. Where this story is going is that while much of the contents of the Steele dossier are questionable, "...the Senate report examines in detail the less tawdry, but far more plausible, story that Trump had a brief affair on his earlier trip to Moscow and the Russians knew about it.", to put it in the words of James Risen. - MrX 🖋 16:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with you. The current state of the article seems to accepts the assumptions or assertions made by Steele to mostly be true, and there's no way to prove a negative. Look at the difficulty we've gone through to simply put that the Cohen in Prague thing has no evidence and was rejected by Mueller. This is not the way it should work. Maybe when Durham's report comes out we will know more, so we can at least hope for that. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . The article is regularly updated in the manner described by MrX, IOW it morphs according to the latest RS coverage. It contains Steele's own doubts about the reliability of certain allegations from sources, and it contains the doubts and accusations against the dossier from many of its enemies because RS have also covered them. You don't seem to have read the whole article. The article documents both sides.
 * What may not be satisfactory to some here is that the slant put on the same details is coming from RS, and not framed in the way those same details are described in unreliable sources friendly to Trump/Putin/Russia. That's the way Wikipedia works. For each detail, we choose the framing found in RS, not the way those same dots of information are framed in the Trump-friendly conspiracy theories used as part of the cover-up of his misdeeds. Now we've learned that Rosenstein is part of that obstruction of efforts (aka a cover-up) to get to the bottom of what happened. -- Valjean (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , where do I find where the NYT calls the Dossier "deeply flawed," or where the Senate Committee Report calls the Dossier "debunked?" These are the recent RS characterizations which have been ignored by this article's editors. Now BLP violations against Rosenstein are ok? I haven't seen any evidence that he covered anything up? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me of that. We were discussing it before I went on vacation, and, now that I'm back, I'm still trying to get up to speed. There is plenty of content which already says as much. That just happens to be a new version of existing content in the article, but you seem to really be fixated on using exactly that wording (deeply flawed), so I'd like to see where it could go in the article. As I said, it doesn't say anything not already mentioned as many of the flaws are already mentioned. This current thread isn't a good place to discuss this. Feel free to come to my talk page where we can hammer something usable into shape for inclusion. I'd love to work with you on that. (Rosenstein's blocking of further investigations of Trump's ties to Russia is in all the major headlines right now. It looks really bad.) -- Valjean (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This discussion is an example of why I was hoping to add some clarification to one of our policy pages. (See WT:Verifiability). To quote myself
 * <blockquote style="background-color:#eef8ff; border-left:3px solid #333388; padding:0 .8em; margin:0;">WP:ONUS is often used as a reason for objecting to content, when really it should be a response to editors who insist that any verifiable content can be included in an article. To put it another way, WP:ONUS is sometimes used as an argument for editors who simple don't like a particular piece of content. Almost as frequently, more experienced editors cite WP:PRESERVE—the part of the editing policy that says appropriate material should be preserved or fixed if possible.
 * No one here is claiming that this material should be included solely because it is sourced. WP:CRYONUS should be a thing.- MrX 🖋 12:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno man. It would be like using Barr to shit on Nancy Pelosi. That is more the heart of the issue. Yes he is a military historian, but he is also an avid never-Trumper. While POV of sources are allowed it really takes it into the undue arena. PackMecEng (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the fourth time you have used “never-Trumper” as a disqualifier. Yes, he was against Trump. But, this is like saying we should not allow an expert on a subject who was a “never-George Wallacer” to comment on something in his area of expertise related to George Wallace. It is attributed. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But not properly attributed. When attributing POV you need to specify what that POV is. It is just like the example I gave. If we were to use Barr to talk about Pelosi it would have to be qualified with something like Republican Barr or Trump's AG Barr said X. The same is true here. Him being a never-Trumper is not a disqualifier but a POV that needs to be attributed. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 20% of Republicans in Congress did not support Trump. Both Bush’s did not support Trump. You called him an “Anti-Trump activist” and said we could use that in the article. I can find no cite that uses this term for him.  We cannot label anyone against Trump in such a manner or discard his views. He is an acknowledged expert in the field and should be treated as such. Frankly, I think you are smearing him. O3000 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave plenty of sources, it is not controversial. Some of the sources I gave were even his own words. So no, not smearing anyone get off that train. I also do not care if others are anti-Trump, we are not trying to use them as an expert. We are trying to use Boot and Boot's views need to be attributed. Full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the third time, they are attributed. But, we are not going to smear him by calling him an activist. O3000 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the twentieth time not they are not attributed, just putting his name there is not what attributing is. Also for the fortieth time no smear has happened, that is not what smearing is. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussing Pelosi or Barr, or defecation. We don't use WP:OR to create pseudoattributions. Let's stick to sources that actually exist. - MrX 🖋 15:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct this is not a forum, so why are you pontificating on the meaning of ONUS? I thought the community shut your change down? Again we normally attribute POV with things like Democrat X said Y or Republican X said Y, this is no different. Lets follow standard practice, RS, and policy please. PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, change it to “Republican Max Boot” which is well known. “Never-Trumper activist” I can’t find anywhere and sounds like a POV smear. O3000 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Compromise Republican Never Trumper Max Boot? Gets rid of activist and covers both bases. PackMecEng (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you going to add that label to WP refs to George Will, Bill Kristol, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, etc.? No, we shouldn't use such labels. There is no formal never-Trump anything. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure if the label fits why not? It gives important insight into what informs their views and where they are coming from. Also are you really going to deny that Never Trump movement is a thing? Even Boot says it's a thing and he is part of it. Lets follow RS and how the author describes himself instead of your own OR. PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP is not RS. I have seen him say never Trump in an interview. But, tens of millions would say that. Let’s not get into Trump’s habit of attaching simplistic labels to everyone he doesn’t like, as if their philosophies can be boiled down to one hashtag. People can follow the WikiLink for more info. O3000 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the promotion to Pontiff, I've always felt my true talents were underappreciated.😏 However, unless Max Boot calls himself a never Trumper in the cited source, neither can we. - MrX 🖋 16:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well then you are in luck friend! I have given sources above that in his own words and secondary sources describe his involvement in the never-Trump movement. Heck you can even check our article on never-Trump and you will find he is one of the few people listed by name attached to the movement. So yes, lets go by how RS describe the subject and use the appropriate attribution for the subject to follow NPOV. Thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "... unless Max Boot calls himself a never Trumper in the cited source, neither can we." WP:SYNTH does not permit us to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. - MrX 🖋 18:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not actually what is happening here.... Lets just follow policy and RS for once and put in the appropriate attribution. That is how NPOV works. Again he calls himself that and RS calls himself that. The fact that he doesn't in the opinion column he wrote has no bearing on anything. Again please follow policy and RS on this one. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was quoting policy. You can't add labels like "Never Trumper" to imply that Boot's opinion and analysis are the product of his affiliation with that movement. Feel free to inquire at WP:ORN if you don't believe me. - MrX 🖋 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean you are welcome to go there if you want. But again I would rather stick to policy and RS. So lets do that and attribute his view the way RS do. Let me know how the discussion on ORN goes though and see if they agree with your OR on this subject. All I am saying is we treat this like we treat literally every other POV source making claims about a BLP. No need to whitewash this. PackMecEng (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Whitewash"? Now you are smearing him again. You are suggesting a subject expert has ulterior motives. There is nothing to whitewash. O3000 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Attribution refers to naming the source and author. It does not allow NPOV violations by including editors' opinions about the author designed to poison the well. Editors should stay neutral, which is why we don't describe all the Trump lackeys cited as "Trump lackey (name)". Just attribute all opinions that might be disputed or controversial by mentioning the author. -- Valjean (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What precisely does the text in question add or contribute to this nearly 25,000 word article? Do we really need another opinion writer to tell us it "may have some basis in fact?" Well does it, or does it not? That's what we should be interested in. There are ELEVEN paragraphs in the "veracity" about the pee tape. Yes, the pee tape - something that has no actual credible shred of evidence supporting it. But you wouldn't find that out easily from the 11 paragraphs would you? About the best corroboration is a Russian saying that several Russian prostitutes believe it. Are we being serious here? We also somehow have found it fit to include a blurb about a 25 second fake pee tape. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * It is impossible to begin to make any progress on this article when the primary author and several like-minded editors don't believe there is an issue. When someone makes a bold removal, it's swiftly reverted and and protected and insisted that it's appropriate. We literally just had a discussion about ONUS, and the experienced editors going against it know better, and say so, on many other articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know what the pee tape has to do with this section -- and I already said I think it should be removed or greatly reduced. O3000 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * O3000, we are not allowed to trash properly sourced content, per WP:PRESERVE. Instead, policy describes the only proper way to deal with content that might become undue, and that is to move all the content to a sub-article and leave a small summary section with a "main" link to it. Like it or not, RS coverage makes the pee tape allegation the best-known allegation and thus the one with the most due weight.
 * Its actual significance might be considered relatively small compared to the proof provided for the active co-operation by Trump and his campaign with the Russian interference, except for the very real possibility that Trump is being blackmailed (providing part of the "why" he co-operates so willingly with Putin), if not by the pee tape (which Trump thinks exists to the degree that he had Cohen try to find and squash it), then by other sexual and corrupt matters which the Russians know about. -- Valjean (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in the pee tape section. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is in the section on the pee tape. Did you look at the edit in question? PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in a different sub-section and the Boot article says nothing about a pee tape. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you'll note my original reason for removing the text, part of it was that the article was already WAY too long, so adding text to a sub-section makes the whole section longer and emphasizes its prominence. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And as I replied, remove something like the pee tape, which you did, and "too long" is simply not an excuse for halting additions. Hey, I suggested a compromise. You enacted one half of the compromise and not the other. O3000 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the other half? The Boot stuff in question is in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, then should I assume you are not arguing for its removal? Wasn't what I got from your statement above: It is impossible to begin to make any progress on this article when the primary author and several like-minded editors don't believe there is an issue. When someone makes a bold removal, it's swiftly reverted and and protected and insisted that it's appropriate. O3000 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I still stand by the other half of my initial revert summary that Boot's opinion is UNDUE considering how long this article is. He didn't conclude anything - simply said something "may" mean something else. That doesn't help us advance the topic. Boot has become well known for his opposition to the president, and it really is no surprise that he writes another opinion piece already stating his well known and reported opinion. The question we have to answer is does this opinion piece advance our knowledge of this topic, and should therefore be given a place in an already very long article. In other words, if it was a man bites dog piece instead of the usual dog bites man then it would be more DUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Boot has become well known for his opposition to the president". Is that an argument for exclusion? I hope we are not going to exclude all well sourced views by experts just because they criticized this president? That would be a lot of people and contrary to our policies. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the first sentence of my comment where I stated Boot's opinion was UNDUE, and then went on to describe why I felt that way? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A unilateral removal of long-standing content (like that) is unacceptable. This content is important because one should include not only claims from the dossier, but also other claims made directly about the dossier to help a reader to judge about the veracity of the claims. This is actually even more important than claims themselves. Same applies to any other pages and subjects about controversial stories or documents. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made a series of reverts (which counts as ONE revert) to restore all that content. The sources are about the dossier and the alleged pee tape/Ritz Carlton incident. Since RS have made that allegation the best known and most controversial, details are necessary to determine what is true and what is not true. If Trump and not repeatedly lied about it, there would be much less content, but many RS have made a point of debunking his lies, so that makes the section larger. -- Valjean (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I support the first serious attempt to pear down this bloated article. Thank you Mr Ernie for your bold action. It is unfortunate the baseless reverts that Valjean did which cited no policy based reason and are in fact a detriment to the article as a whole. PackMecEng (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have described the proper way to deal with content that becomes undue, the only way which does not violate WP:PRESERVE. -- Valjean (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Preserve does not protect poor or undue content such as this. You should stop leaning on that crutch so hard, its how this article ended up in the shape that it is in. What you did with all those reverts was give a caned unhelpful and non-policy based response that addressed none of the concerns. So if you have no actual reason for restoring the content past WP:ILIKEIT, it should obviously be removed again. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * UNDUE - The opinion piece is passing mention with a splash of wishful thinking by Boot based on the WaPo article he cited. The New York Times sheds far more light, and begins with (my bold underline): The Senate committee report says that President Trump may have had a relationship with a Russian beauty pageant winner. But investigators say they “did not establish” that Russia had compromising information on Mr. Trump.  The Boot material has nothing to do with the Steele dossier other than the WaPo article he cited for its passing mention about unrelated kompromat that was juxtaposed, making it easy to conflate the Senate intel committee's findings with the dossier's misinformation and/or suspected Russian disinformation. Relative to the new allegations/information for inclusion here, there is nothing additional that I could find in the Senate intel report that validates anything beyond what they have already validated in the Steele dossier, which is very little. The intel report does not satisfactorily corroborate what the media and this article have alleged relative to the dossier, golden showers, various sex allegations, or anything I found beyond what is clearly stated on page 927 (my bold underline) - FBI leaders believed the information was responsive to the President"s tasking, even though FBI had officially broken ties with Steele  and had corroborated very little of the information.  I tried to corroborate the media allegations about a woman or women with Trump per Boot, WaPo, & the NYT. Following is what the NYT stated, citing references to their own articles: The allegations about Mr. Trump were included in the fifth and final volume of a bipartisan report released on Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which presented potentially compromising information that the Russians may have on Mr. Trump and could use against him as leverage. It should actually make you angry to have been misled to this degree. The NYTimes pointed to their own article, which finally ends up here about Mr. Curran and "potentially compromising information", which is a big nothing burger:
 * Next Curran reference:
 * 3rd and final Curran reference is Pg 653, 654 with more mention of women. I'm not going quote them all. I didn't see anything but Trump showing off as he always does. He was not the president then, either. He was running a beauty pageant. It's a ridiculous waste of time - clickbait. If you see something I missed, bring it on. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 23:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We need a secondary source in order to establish the noteworthiness of this opinion, otherwise it lacks weight for inclusion. Also, when we present readers with opinions, we should tell them something about the person holding them, which secondary sources do. Presumably readers consider the political orientation and record of accuracy for writers when assessing how seriously to take their opinions. I know I do. It might be relevant that Boot's dispute with Trump is over Trump's lack of commitment to foreign wars and that Boot mislead the public by claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That information would give him greater credibility among some readers, such as Biden supporters, less among others. TFD (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to last comment by Atsme... If there were highly notable/widely published and reliably sourced accusations about a public figure followed by notable investigations which did not (or did) establish something, this whole story should be included to the page per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (public figures). My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree if we follow WP:SPECULATION carefully relative to bias after considering the weight of argumentum ad ignorantiam in making a determination. But at the same time, we also have to consider WP:EXCEPTIONAL because it involves a BLP - public figure or not - which may weigh heaviest in this particular situation. Do we meet the requirements of EXCEPTIONAL? While we may have notable people involved I'm not quite convinced they are not politically driven, and I question today's clickbait driven media as we all should. I am skeptical of expert politicians and people driven by their political beliefs but I will follow consensus, even when I disagree with the outcome. Perhaps an RfC is in order? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to last comment by Atsme... If there were highly notable/widely published and reliably sourced accusations about a public figure followed by notable investigations which did not (or did) establish something, this whole story should be included to the page per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (public figures). My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree if we follow WP:SPECULATION carefully relative to bias after considering the weight of argumentum ad ignorantiam in making a determination. But at the same time, we also have to consider WP:EXCEPTIONAL because it involves a BLP - public figure or not - which may weigh heaviest in this particular situation. Do we meet the requirements of EXCEPTIONAL? While we may have notable people involved I'm not quite convinced they are not politically driven, and I question today's clickbait driven media as we all should. I am skeptical of expert politicians and people driven by their political beliefs but I will follow consensus, even when I disagree with the outcome. Perhaps an RfC is in order? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the pee tape
I can't believe I have to start this discussion, really, but here we are. Should this information stay in this article?

Point 1: "A 25-second "pee tape" video of the purported occurrence has been in circulation since at least January 25, 2019. Ashley Feinberg has written extensively about it and all the reports and sources which have discussed and analyzed it. She describes it as believable but fake."

Rationale: This content talks about a pee tape that RS concluded was fake.

Point 2: While many people, including Russians, do not believe the "pee tape" incident happened, Stanislav Belkovsky, Russian political analyst and a founder and director of the National Strategy Institute, disagrees: "Prostitutes around the city say the 'golden shower' orgy story is true"

Rationale: This content gives undue weight to Russian prostitutes, who claim the golden shower orgy story is true. Do we really let Russians, well known for their disinformation, set the bar for inclusion? This is honestly ridiculous. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, the reliability threshold there is a problem — with potential BLP ramifications... El_C 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is the opinion of that one author that it's a fake. Her reasoning is questionable, but we don't say that. We just cite her opinion accurately and attribute it to her. That's how we roll at Wikipedia. Her article happens to be a good summary of all the RS on the subject, and thus it's a valuable RS to use.
 * There is no BLP violation. We are supposed to cover all sides from RS, and that's why we already include plenty of opinions which doubt the pee tape. -- Valjean (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So long as the matter is presented with due weight that reflects scholarly and mainstream consensus... El_C 23:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Most mainstream sources describe it as bunk. Our article acknowledge that to a degree but spends most of the time explaining how it could in fact be real. Valjean could show ya a video of it if you want. PackMecEng (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm good. El_C 23:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha good call. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * El_C, the article describes what mainstream RS say about it, including Steele's own doubts, saying it might have a 50% chance of being true/untrue. Should we not mention such doubts? We do not present it as true, we just document what both sides in RS have dealt with it. That's what we're supposed to do.
 * The only reason that the allegation hasn't been buried and forgotten is that Trump has treated the alleged pee tape's existence as a real possibility. He lied to Comey several times about it, causing Comey, who was a strong doubter of what he saw as a ridiculous accusation, to change his mind and become a peeliever. Trump also had Cohen try to find and squash the tape, if it existed. You don't do that if you KNOW you didn't do anything wrong. If he didn't do anything wrong, there couldn't be a tape of it, and one would ignore fake tapes. The Mueller Report has a footnote on the matter of Cohen's attempt to squash it. RS have covered the pee tape allegation, largely because of its sensational nature, but we have not stooped to using tabloid coverage, only very RS coverage. -- Valjean (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would submit to you that WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies here. El_C 00:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? To WHAT would it apply? -- Valjean (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To a presentation about the authenticity of the material in question. El_C 00:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ? I still don't understand your exact point. Are you speaking about the dossier, the pee tape allegation, the existence of the pee tape itself, or something else? We try to present things as RS do, IOW from all sides. What side should we not cover? -- Valjean (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the pee tape allegation. An allegation that we need to present as one which is a likely hoax. El_C 00:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * RS weigh heavily toward hoax: Rolling Stone: Rtskhiladze later admitted he had been told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen...; The Intelligencer: But it appears they weren’t real.; WaPo: The rumored tape may be the rare bit of White House-branded “fake news” that is, in fact, fake. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 01:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * El_C, we have cited RS which describe it that way. That's what we're supposed to do, but we also cite how other RS have described it. That too is what we're supposed to do.
 * Are you proposing that Wikipedia take sides and present only one POV? We already cite RS which use the following descriptions: debunked, hoax, fake, discredited, fictitious, and fake news. Those RS are usually quoting those words as used by Trump and his supporters (who are immune to facts, but swallow their own alternative facts and such descriptions found on unreliable and deprecated sources).
 * We know that none of those have been proven to be the case because we have no proof either way. The real status is that "we don't really know if a real, not fake, pee tape with Trump exists", and that's the position of serious RS and intelligence professionals, and we also quote them. We must cover both/all sides in the way that RS have described the allegation. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Valjean, engaging in WP:FALSEBALANCE has BLP ramifications. El_C 01:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not allowed to take sides. We are not presenting sources as of equal weight, ergo a "false balance". We are presenting what all RS say without taking sides. That's what NPOV tells us to do, also in BLP situations. (BLP is a total non-issue here because we are wording things as RS do, and citing RS. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. So please stop mentioning BLP, as it's functioning as a red herring right now.) Unless you know some facts from RS that I haven't seen, then we are still in a situation where we don't know, and therefore must not favor any POV, just present them. When RS present some new evidence that is definitive, then, and only then, will we side with RS which take that view. That's what we do with conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. -- Valjean (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that does come across as FALSEBALANCE, and as an uninvolved admin with the authority to enforce discretionary sanctions, BLP is a concern I take seriously. Context matters. Misrepresentation of consensus among sources is harmful to the project's reputation and standing. El_C 02:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think(?) I get your point, and I want to make it clear that I too have BLP concerns in the back of my head all the time when dealing with this stuff. My comment above was couched in very specific language and did not intend to show any form of carelessness with BLP issues. I've been here since 2003 and my wordings are still in many of our most important policies. The requirement to include denials, found at WP:PUBLICFIGURE, is my addition, so I am cognizant of the importance of treating allegations properly, IOW neutral language (following NPOV and NOTCENSORED by being cautious while not fearing to use/quote the language used in RS, no matter how offensive it may be), proper attribution, and good sourcing.
 * I suspect, and I trust you will advise and clarify for me, that any difference here is more about the nature of "consensus among sources". If such a consensus exists, I haven't seen it. (A bunch of sources provided above depends largely on opinions, so I can't really use them for much when trying to find a consensus.) While many opinions in RS take cheap and ignorant pot shots at the allegation which are unworthy of use for "consensus", there is also serious coverage about the issues involved (potential blackmail risk and national security issues), and among them, the consensus seems to be that "we don't know", as I wrote above. Then there are the myriad opinions which are all over the place, but largely, still as opinions, tend to downgrade the pee tape allegation. We document those opinions in the article, in case you hadn't noticed.
 * So there is a huge divergence between serious coverage which examines the known facts (about the Moscow visit, the timing, the failures of even Trump's own bodyguard to provide an alibi for Trump, the multiple unnecessary and unforced lies by Trump about what he did or didn't do then, and the facts that there were witnesses of women being offered, appearing in the lobby, seen in the elevator with Trump, etc.) and the POV and politically fraught opinions bantered around, often without examining, or refusing to examine, the serious facts.
 * We can't treat facts as opinions or opinions as facts, so we're left with this divergence, all in RS, and NPOV and BLP tell us to present them and let readers make up their own minds. This isn't solid scientific stuff, where there is solid evidence for or against. That evidence would allow us to come down solidly on one side and say "it's totally debunked", but, because that view is from lots of opinions which often ignore all the facts, we're left in doubt about the possibility it might be real. I wish we knew, but we don't. Only Trump, Agalarov, the hookers, and the Russian FSB really know, and Trump and the FSB already lie to us all the time about everything. We can take sides with scientifically falsifiable matters, as we do with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, but we just don't have solid evidence for or against here.
 * I really appreciate the collegial spirit and efforts to calmly discuss and figure this out. We are AGF and trying to understand each other. That's good. Let's keep this up. The lack of personalization, threats, and attempts to coerce is also refreshing. -- Valjean (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So long as the prostitutes are not the publishers (or are competent journalists in their day jobs) I don't see why this would be discarded out of hand. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The only reason they even get mentioned is because an authority gives it credence and that was included in RS coverage. Therefore we can't just ignore it. -- Valjean (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this Slate article? Wow. In the end, the rooms are not the same. There was a remodel of the presidential suite after the incident but the videos show the remodeled room. The tape with Trump in it is fake. The allegation needs to be included in the article but as unproven, and by some measure, debunked to reflect NPOV. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 00:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We do exactly that, and include and attribute the author's opinion that it's a fake. I question her reasoning for several reasons, but we don't include that! -- Valjean (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Look, I think it's all true. But, I don't like the provenance. I'm fine with the text that talks about him having dalliances in Moscow. I’m having difficulty with the pee tape stuff based on lack of RS. (Not dissing Russian prostitutes who are likely more trustworthy than....) Plus, I really don’t think it helps the article as a whole, particularly considering the size of the article. There exists so much stuff that is well sourced – that we don’t need this. And, it is a BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * O3000, you're "having difficulty with the pee tape stuff based on lack of RS"??? I don't understand. ALL mainstream RS have used many bytes on it, usually in a non-serious manner. I think we have avoided using such content and have stuck to the more serious mentions and discussions, and there are plenty of RS which do that. Please say more. -- Valjean (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we include the pee tape, then some editors will argue we include that it has been debunked. I don’t like the evidence and it may very well be a hoax; but I also don’t agree that it has been debunked. I think if we look at the larger issue of Trump having dalliances in Moscow, the evidence is stronger and everything along these lines certainly hasn’t been debunked. The RS is wider and stronger. Just my opinion on how to handle this. No intention of dying on this hill. O3000 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A reliably sourced and important claim does not mean the truth. Something that Stanislav Belkovsky said. Is it the truth? No, of course not. But that is a reliably sourced view by one of the most well known Russian political scientists/analysts, and as such I think it belongs to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with MVBW based on WP:SPECULATION wherein it states: Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 17:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Adding: see my more detailed response above. 17:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , - re:Stanislav Belkovsky and the statement I just removed from the article. We can't include it based only on The Daily Beast.  MVBW - what source are you referring to above which gives a conflicting report to TDB? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Daily Beast is probably a weak source here. However, this claim by Belkovsky was mentioned in other sources, even books, for example, in Proof of Collusion: How Trump Betrayed America (Simon & Schuster, 2018) here, so I think this could be restored with a better sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is good argument for inclusion, despite my normal distaste for the Daily Beast as a source. Let's cite it to Abramson's book not the Beast directly. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who goes to my talk page will find a shocking state of affairs. Atsme was happy with something I did, but others may not know why, so here's the explanation....brace yourselves....I "liked" Atsme's deletion here. Wonders never cease! I wrote the following to her:
 * Your edit summary gave a legitimate reason for deleting that content. It's that simple. Without more sources, it fails PUBLICFIGURE. Unlike other controversial content in the article, that content was only backed up with that one ref. Although it's not always visible, other controversial allegations are always backed up with multiple RS, some of which have been deleted to cut down on the size of the article. They can be resurrected if anyone who doesn't know the history of that article tries to challenge some content. It just looks messy with 5-10 refs after a sentence.
 * If more sources are found for that content, it might be restored, but I'm not sure there are any. He has stated more than once that he believes the whole pee tape story is true, and that Putin has kompromat on Trump, but right now that's not enough to justify keeping that content. I've just gotten home and I'll leave this comment (tweaked a bit) on the talk page. I'm tickled pink that I could make you happy. We do have our differences, but I still find you a very interesting person.

So I will just note that anyone has the right to restore that content with more sources. Stanislav Belkovsky is a very notable expert to quote, and his evaluation is worth considering. He knows what he's talking about. -- Valjean (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote in question doesn't rely on the notability of an expert - Belkovsky is not the one making the claim that he thinks the pee tape exists. He is saying Russian prostitutes have said it exists. That is a key distinction to make, as the Russian prostitutes are not automatically credible if their claims are repeated by someone more notable. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the prostitutes are the real experts who know what their colleagues have told them, and the fact that a Russian expert with his pulse on what's happening in Moscow, especially when he dares to express views that might get him killed, lends even more credence to their claims. If their claims were ridiculous, he wouldn't risk damaging his credibility or life.
 * Whether we do or don't believe them is another matter (that has zero bearing on whether we can use them or not), but the source is a RS, he is an expert, and the prostitutes are credible as first-/second-hand witnesses. There are lots of different types of sources that back up the claim as likely true, but we still lack any real proof one way or the other. Serious sources don't solve the matter either way.
 * Like Steele, I used to be skeptical, but after Comey's experiences with Trump's lying repeatedly, I join him as a "maybe" peeliever. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, as it is totally in-character for Trump to do that (only Trump could come up with the idea of defiling the bed) and for Russian intelligence to set him up. The Ritz Carlton had FSB agents in-house during that visit, along with some girls they could use, exactly for that type of honeypot operation, and Trump is known to have no "won't power" when it comes to pretty girls.
 * Belkovsky has stated more than once that he believes the whole pee tape story is true, and that Putin has kompromat on Trump. -- Valjean (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the prostitutes are the real experts - If I was more clever I would have a good joke about that line. I would say that I couldn't have expected that to be said on Wikipedia, but here we are, discussing pee tapes and expert, credible prostitutes. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this is nothing "exceptional." The KGB and successor organizations always offered their prostitutes (ones who also worked for the KGB) to any foreigner who would be: (a) of significant interest for them (that was one), and (b) would be inclined to such entertainment (they study in advance the personal tastes of people who they want to enroll or compromise). This all well known, this is textbook honey trapping. In Russian language these women are known as "Chekist swallows". My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a Jennifer Lawrence movie about that? Or maybe it was more about spies using sex, not hookers working for spies. Well, both things occur. Red Sparrow was the movie. Here's a trailer. -- Valjean (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the movie, and she is great actress, but this is mostly a fantasy. They do teach, but mostly the techniques how to manipulate other people. In real life that would by Katya Moomoo or someone like Butina.  That one is a good RS, and puts this to certain perspective. Here Gennady Gudkov comments on kompromat collection in relation to D. Trump: "You don’t even have to be a person of interest. They just gather everything like a vacuum cleaner and then see what they can use.". Yes, he knows better. And of course, as this RS tells, there was the famous honey trapping of Yuri Skuratov, which cleared the way to "election" of Putin by Yeltsin in 1999. My very best wishes (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "but this is mostly a fantasy" - Christopher Steele won an Oscar for the screenplay, but he had to share it with the White Helmets because theirs got damaged by the left over chlorine from their special effects unit. Shtove (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL! I agree, but then we mustn't assume that they never know anything or never tell the truth. That would be a serious error.
 * This whole pee tape thing tends to distract from the fact that "multiple intelligence sources" and "at least one East European intelligence service" reported that "compromising material on Mr. Trump" included "more than one tape, not just video, but audio as well, on more than one date, in more than one place, in both Moscow and St. Petersburg." Trump did not suddenly cease to be a playboy when visiting Russia. That idea would make no sense at all.
 * Belief in the existence of kompromat on Trump does not rely on the pee tape. Remove it and there is still a national security problem. -- Valjean (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not certain about restoring this claim (last removal by Atsme). This is because I know too well the presentations by Belkovsky (I saw a lot of them on "Rain TV"). He is a nice, clever, funny and well informed man, but somehow I do not trust him too much. But this is not a policy-based argument. So if someone else wants to restore it with a better reference - see discussion above - I do not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Get rid of it. It's more hearsay and speculation than is healthy for a BLP-related article. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

for possible inclusion
Barr/Graham enable dossier source to be exposed

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html

soibangla (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Valjean (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)