Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 21

Assange fake news part 2
IMHO, this can again be fake news, as the first time, but it can be not as we now have Seth Rich family v. Fox News case where the judge asked British courts to depose Assange on emails. So this time it may be true. Anyway, should be added in the article. BTW, the story about our russian bounties was finally proved to be false. Haha. Fact check was right. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wrong article. -- Valjean (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * BTW, where is Part 1? -- Valjean (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In archive. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which archive number? Which article? -- Valjean (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steele_dossier/Archive_19#Assange_fake_news 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:2D69:C13F:5652:4F70 (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Still wrong article. Discuss this at the Julian Assange or WikiLeaks articles. -- Valjean (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Which/What "Information"
This line is unclear and therefore non-sequitor and a stumbling block to the Reader (in this case, me).

While compiling the dossier, Steele passed information to both British and American intelligence services.

Which information? The Article describes how the deal was originally contracted, and then subcontracted to Steele, and how Steele claimed he did not know who the ultimate contracting entity was until months later, and then there's this oddball line that doesn't flow. Was he forwarding the SAME information to the British and American Intelligence services, or was this simply other, and unrelated information. Is this sentence intended to simply establish that he had working relationships with entities other than GPS Fusion, or is it more specific, and significant, that the information was the SAME as what Fusion GPS had subcontracted him to gather. Because if "B", then it means he was being paid by a private corporation to gather information, but he was sharing that information (for free?) with two different governments. This implies (to me) that there was some sort of cooperative effort between Fusion GPS, the American and the British Intelligence. It gets the Reader all distracted and wondering about conspiracies in the very beginning of the Article. IMO this line should either be clarified or perhaps moved into the body of the Article. Also as an afterthought, if the information was the same, then it makes the Reader wonder if it was comprehensive, meaning both intelligence agencies got everything, or was it selective. Some got some, but neither got all.68.206.249.124 (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was the same information. I'll tweak that. -- Valjean (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hyperbolic Guardian quote in no way represents the POV of the vast majority of RS
The Guardian has described it as "one of the most explosive documents in modern political history"

In no way shape or form represents the POV of the majority of RS.

he primary sub-source that former British spy Christopher Steele used to compile his anti-Trump dossier https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/24/steele-dossier-russia-doj-421536

It is a 35-page collection of research memos written by Christopher Steele, a respected former British intelligence agent, primarily during the 2016 presidential campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html the controversial dossier that made salacious but unverified claims about his ties to Russia

The controversial 35 pages of intelligence memos compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-later/index.html

I can post 100 more none of which are hyperbolic left wing tabloid journalism. "We try to present things as RS do"  A vast majority of  RS calls it controversial and yet that word-which should be in the lede is completely absent in the description on the WP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * When you refer to the Guardian as hyperbolic left wing tabloid journalism, you undermine the credibility of whatever you happen to be arguing. If you think Wikipedia should have different standards for reliability, then you need to argue that in the policy discussion pages. TFD (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * When you lede with anything but "We are presenting what all RS say without taking sides. That's what NPOV tells us to do," while ommiting the most common word the RS used to describe it-controversial- you undermine the credibility of the WP. If you think the NPOV policy  should be changed to reflect the sole opinion of one left wing tabloid journalist over "We try to present things as RS do"  then change the NPOV policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * being controversial does not preclude it being "one of the most explosive documents in modern political history".Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Being labeled as controversial in the vast majority of RS and yet not called controversial once on the WP intimates that the guardian's quote precludes the majority of RS material. Controversial should be in the first sentence and the hyperbolic quote that represents the opinion of one person should be gone. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF (talk) 10:19, October 6, 2020‎ (UTC)


 * In your opinion. And others disagree, as indeed reasonable people may. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF, you need to reread your original comment and fix it. It appears there are some gaps and missing words, enough that some of it makes no sense. If I understand you correctly, you are upset that the article doesn't describe the dossier as "controversial", even though it does. ("Jane Mayer believes the dossier is "perhaps the most controversial opposition research ever to emerge from a Presidential campaign",...") The word "controversial" is a very generic term and the lowest level term right between "duh, blah, boring" and "uncontroversial". It really means little, but I certainly have no problem with describing it as extremely controversial. Jane Mayer says "perhaps the most controversial". We include myriad terms that are used as descriptions, all of which come under the umbrella of "controversial", but are more descriptive and useful (discredited, debunked, fictitious, hoax, fraud, fake news, etc). Would you like the Mayer description included in the lead? Do you seriously disagree with the Guardian's "one of the most explosive documents in modern political history"? Really? We just need something to cover the topic of "legacy". -- Valjean (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's more than simple disagreement but I have some suggestions that will help improve BALANCE, DUE, & WEIGHT now that we have the advantage of retrospective. Newly released unclassified documents tend to make this article appear as a biased attempt to validate the debunked Steele dossier. Our first obligation is to present a factual encyclopedic article to our readers. This article does not fit that description because it is overly reliant on misleading, if not completely false, opposition research. The devil is in the details, and there are far too many speculative details in lieu of statements of fact. Another issue involves semantics, including loaded phrases such as the one in the lead, "most explosive documents in modern political history", clearly WP:puffery that sensationalizes debunked Russian kompromat and disinformation - see the RS above and below. Neutrality issues need correcting, material needs updating, unrelated material needs removal, and WEIGHT needs changing to reflect the updated facts about the dossier and what it attempted to do but failed. This article is too long per WP:LENGTH with its 120 kB (19344 words) "readable prose size". Per WaPo: The dossier itself was not intended to be published and consists largely of rumors and gossip — the starting point for investigative reporters and law enforcement officials, not the end point. Defenders say the dossier's overall message was validated by the Mueller report whereas detractors say the details were proven false or they are unverified; WaPo stated last year that Neither case is confirmed by the Mueller report. The ongoing counterintelligence investigation has shed new light on the Steele dossier with newly unclassified documents and unredacted material. It is now confirmed that the FBI was aware in early 2017 that the Steele Dossier was unreliable, and that the FBI mischaracterized, mislead and lied to the FISA court and to the Senate Intelligence Committee. See CBS News, and Senate Judiciary press release.
 * WSJ 2020-07-19 - ...the Federal Bureau of Investigation was wary in early 2017 of a dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele that helped stir a narrative, later debunked,...
 * Boston Herald: 2020-07-21 Howie Carr: Alt-left media still cling to their Big (Russia) Lie
 * Yahoo! News - National Review: 2020-04-24 (Corroborated by MSN 2020-4-24) - Christopher Steele admitted under oath in March that he had no records of his conversations with the primary sub-source for his infamous dossier, contradicting public claims made by his lawyers in December and sowing further doubts amid allegations that Steele relied on Russian disinformation.
 * Rolling Stone: 2019-12-10 - ‘Corroboration Zero’: An Inspector General’s Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke
 * PolitiFact: 2018-01-02 Elizabeth Foley: ''Says James Comey suggested and CNN reported that the basis of the wiretapping warrant for Trump adviser Carter Page was "all based on a dossier."
 * There's a lot to digest here, and I suggest we start by eliminating the unrelated and debunked material, and shortening the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 13:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the NYT calling it deeply flawed, again pointing out the debunked Cohen --> Prague key claim that the main authors of this article still believe to be true. As long as that is the case, substantial improvement to this article is impossible. It's like having acupunturists write the acupuncture article. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, you write "still believe to be true". I can't speak for others, but one does not have to believe an allegation is true to still document how RS have approached the claim. It's still in the "unconfirmed" class of allegations, with evidence for and against, and we do document how many consider the claim debunked due to lack of evidence. Unfortunately for Trump's defenders, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The claim has not been truly "debunked", hence its "open" status, and Cohen's own lies about it have created doubt about it, as if he's hiding something, maybe that the truth is very close to the allegation, thus making his denials technically true. So far, only Cohen (and any alleged co-conspirators, like those alleged to have been with him) knows the real truth. -- Valjean (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A dossier can be wrong and still be explosive and controversial.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see a proposed improvement of that wording. Without that, we're just spinning our wheels here. -- Valjean (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no acceptable reason posted since my initial post for the Guardian quote to still be on the page, so why is it there? Controversial is still the single most used RS adjective to describe this subject. it should be in the first line on the page. Central, center and heart of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation is the most common RS qualifier, likewise of course missing from the page except for in one sentence where it is heavily qualified even though 99.99percent of the RS using it use no such qualifier. I thought we were to reflect what RS use? Regardless https://www.scribd.com/document/479781400/Steele-Spreadsheet-1 I'm sure will be used to update the article, even after it is RS spun. This is clearly the dog chasing tail. They repeat the same methods over and over again, Intel plants it in the press then use same press as reason to plow forward. IG Horowitz page 5 found dossier author Christopher Steele spoke to the Yahoo news reporter prior to publication of a September 23 article. The FBI spreadsheet cites the SAME article on page 51 as supporting evidence.(CBS quote) Steele was used by Isikoff which was then used by FBI twice, once as incidence and the second time as confirmation. I haven't followed this that closely but doesn't that mean this is the genesis of the investigation and said Trump conspiracy theory is no longer a theory? I thought Mueller report showed exactly that too? In a nutshell, wikipedia was used by the RS to further the myths as reason to investigate even further. I have the utmost confidence the article and the other 138 spin off articles will be updated to reflect IG Horowitz' notes. I've never seen an encyclopedia before where one answer exists on page 3 but if we turn to page 19 we get a completely different answer. The immense hate Trump sprawl undermines WP credibility. [Special:Contributions/2601:46:C801:B1F0:3079:2A8E:231:192C|2601:46:C801:B1F0:3079:2A8E:231:192C]] (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you didn't complain that The Guardian never made that claim, it was made by an editor of the paper in a signed article. You have to decide whether you want to trash reliable sources or discuss content. The Guardian is not a left-wing tabloid, it's a liberal broadsheet now published in tabloid format. if you want to change rs policy, so that we can reject The Guardian and use OAN and Epoch Times instead, you need to present your arguments on the relevant pages. Anyway, I disagree with your objection. Saying it is explosive does not mean it is true, it merely means that it attracted a lot of attention. Rachel Maddow spend 200 shows talking about it at least. TFD (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2601:46:C801:B1F0:3079:2A8E:231:192C, I have added "controversial" to the lead. It's not an improvement, because "explosive" already describes how controversial it is, but now it's there. Are you satisfied?
 * TFD makes a good point ("explosive does not mean it is true, it merely means that it attracted a lot of attention.") In English, that would be a given and not need explaining, but maybe TFD's explanation does solve some sort of misunderstanding. Anyone who knows anything about the role of the dossier after the election cannot deny that it's been explosive, to put it mildly, having become the subject of media coverage every single day since then, part of conspiracy theories, the subject of congressional investigations, etc. Denying that would be like denying that the sky is blue. It wasn't some little bump in the road. That's how "controversial" it has been, and the fact that Trump and the GOP keep attacking a document that had no role in the election indicates it has a high priority for them as a foil to distract from their real agendas, misdeeds, and all those arrests and convictions of Trump's associates. -- Valjean (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Explosive" does not mean "attracts a lot of attention," it means something that causes a disruption or elicits a hostile reaction. This may have been, though, the dossier's political purpose, but it's exposed as a dud. It's inclusion extends that purpose and promotes WP:puffery.  Tachypaidia (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump's golden shower denial sources
It seems to me the sources for the first 2 sentences could be improved. All three sources are there to establish that Trump made the alibis he did. However, the sources merely cite another source in turn, Jim Comey. The first problem is that these sources are providing "here-say" evidence, when the best source would be citing Comey himself. It also makes it appear that there are 3 sources, when in fact there is only 1 ultimate source: Comey. The best option would be to cite a tweet or equivalent from Trump stating this (I assume none exists). Lacking that, a statement from Comey himself (i.e., sworn testimony, his book, available memos). If you must rely on quotes from news sources, direct quotes from hard new sources would be preferred, with something in the wiki article itself indicating that it is according to Comey that Trump claims the alibis. This is obviously an important point given the hostility that has become evident between the two parties involved.

Finally, one of the cited sources, [236], has a problem. First, it's title, "I'm a Peeliever and You Should Be Too" and it's content doesn't help to establish a neutral point of view for the article. While it does mention Comey's reference to Trump's claim, the entire article is presenting an argument rather than facts, as evidenced by it's closing lines, "Again, none of this is proof. All of it is at least somewhat suggestive." If this was a reference to establish that there was suspicion among the media that Trump lied about his denial, this would be a moderately good reference, since it would be one example. However, it is not a good reference for establishing what Trump said, as discussed above, and it is not a good reference for establishing that the claim was proven false, as it itself admits. CheckitThrice (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "If you must rely on quotes from news sources,..." Yes, we must. We are supposed to depend primarily on secondary and tertiary sources, not primary sources such as a tweet. Claims that are BLP sensitive also require multiple sources. The primary claims/statements/whatever are found in the secondary sources, couched in the analysis and opinions of the author, and that's what we want to provide to our readers. They can read those sources and make up their own minds. They can see how secondary sources treat the matter. That's worth much more than us presenting raw data from primary sources, without context or analysis. Doing that would also risk violating WP:OR. -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. As you can tell, I'm new, so I'm trying to learn the rules.  Here's what doesn't make sense to me about your reply.  If you're trying to establish what Comey says, why not directly quote him?  You do this for Trump when you show his tweets.  You don't use secondary and tertiary sources to establish what Trump tweeted, you show his tweet.  Why not do the same for Comey: Comey has stated: "Trump told me during questioning that he ...blah blah blah" and reference it?  How would that be different than showing Trump's tweets?CheckitThrice (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * CheckitThrice, to make sure I respond properly, are we talking about this section? I ask because we cover this in much greater detail in other sections of the article. (I have now added a "see also" link to the section with in depth coverage.) BTW, I really appreciate your observations and questions. Fresh eyes often see things the rest of us haven't noticed. Maybe this will lead to article improvement. Let's keep working on this. -- Valjean (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources do not have to be neutral. (Those are pretty rare and usually boring.) NPOV requires we document what is written in those sources and not alter, neuter, or censor what they say. If they are opinion, then we attribute them to the author. -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the RS doesn't have to be neutral. But that may come at an unexpected cost. Consider my situation: I came in trying to understand this whole Steele thing. I'm in the process of reading the Senate report, but I'm not up to speed there yet. I was sincerely hoping this article would be an unbiased (to the extent possible) take on the dossier, which is not ever an easy thing to achieve with something this complicated and controversial. Among other parts, I looked at the denial section.  When I see the Peelieving article used as a reference merely to establish what Trump says as an alibi, does that give the impression you'd like me to have?  What if that reference was one that made the argument that Trump was being set up, but it still had the Comey quote.  Would that be OK? What impression would I get then? Why would you pick an RS that wasn't neutral when there is no reason to? Especially one like this that is reveling in its disdain? Obviously there are times where that would make sense, but here you are merely establishing what amounts to a stipulated fact.  Why do that in a controversial way? What purpose does it serve, other than cause readers like me to question the motives of the author(s)? I offer this as an outsider looking at this cold and trying to be helpful; if you don't find this response helpful, that's ok with me.CheckitThrice (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been no doubt in RS that Comey's recollection of what Trump said is accurate. Comey had a habit of immediately writing down what was said in his discussions with Trump, as Trump is a well-known liar who will deny the words he has himself said, even if said before millions of people. Then we have many different pieces of information from several RS which prove that Trump was lying multiple times to Comey and others, unnecessary and unforced lies, which are normally seen as consciousness of guilt. Maybe Trump is innocent, but he doesn't help his case by acting guilty. -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that this point hinges on the fine points of Wiki rules, so you may have to correct me here. While you may feel that RS agree about Comey and Trump, does your opinion matter at all for this purpose? It seems that the article should reflect facts, not authors opinions. Perhaps there should be or already is an article about Lying Trump and Truthful Comey, but this isn't it.  The fact is that Comey has claimed that Trump said something, and evidence has been presented that refutes what Comey claimed Trump said.  Why not tell the reader that?  It is irrefutably true, based on the sources you have sited, and less deceptive (IMHO) than what is there now. If the reader doesn't follow the sources carefully, the reader will likely be under the impression that Trump stated this in a public forum in a way such that there is a public record of what was asked and answered. IMHO, the motto of this article shouldn't be "Let the reader beware", but rather to convey the pertinent facts in a straightforward way.CheckitThrice (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You write: "evidence has been presented that refutes what Comey claimed Trump said." What is your source for that? My opinions are based on the sources I have read. If other RS shed more light on the situation, I will change my opinions. So ultimately the content is based on RS, but no editor knows what's written in all RS, hence our practice of collaborative editing: "No one knows everything, but everyone knows something." By working together, we can create better content. If you'll look at my personal user talk page, you'll see a box about this. -- Valjean (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging . -- Valjean (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Spreadsheet
Analysis of the FBI spreadsheet used to "verify" the Steele dossier should be included. Tachypaidia (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any RS which do that? If so, then maybe we can do that. Otherwise, it would be OR. -- Valjean (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tachypaidia, I have moved this from above so it's more current. I have downloaded the spreadsheet, but it's turned 90 degrees so it's very difficult to deal with. Do you know of a source where it has a normal orientation? I forgot that I can rotate it. Much easier now.

It is supposedly declassified, but there are still key elements that are blacked out. -- Valjean (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What have you noticed in that spreadsheet that's interesting? Right now this is OR, but on this talk page we can just as well prepare for possible coverage by RS. -- Valjean (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging -- Valjean (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The FBI spreadsheet is basically a copy/paste of the Steele dossier claims into a spreadsheet with each claim in a row. The FBI assessment of the claim is then given in a column. This format is parallel to the outline structure of this article. The FBI findings should largely be able to be incorporated into the outline as is with little to no rephrasing, and no OR. Tachypaidia (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. The dossier and the spreadsheet are primary sources, so they must be used with caution. When we have secondary RS mentioning specific allegations AND the spreadsheet, we might be able to use the spreadsheet for them. It is those secondary RS which help us determine due weight. The same principles guided us in choosing which allegations in the dossier got mentioned here. We only mention those that are discussed in multiple RS. There are many allegations which are not mentioned in RS. -- Valjean (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Source #3: Olga Galkina
Olga Galkina has been outed as (Source #3) responsible for some of the dossier’s key allegations, including the debunked allegations that Trump attorney Michael Cohen had conspired with high-level Russian officials in a secret meeting in Prague and that Webzilla played a key role in the 2016 DNC hack. What this brings to the forefront is that there is a large body of Russian émigré and opposition groups to the Russian government and President Putin, and that these have not received due consideration. Olga Galkins, would be representative, a openly disgruntled Russian public relations executive living in Cyprus. Similarly Igor Danchenko, of Russian linage and living outside Russia (in the US). Apparently, Olga and Igor are close friends. An uniformed assumption is that the Steele dossier sources are coming out of Russia, as opposed to the anti-Putin Russian émigrés. Tachypaidia (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! I was just looking at the WSJ coverage of this, but it's behind a paywall. Please share what you can here. Selective quotation is covered by fair use and paraphrasing is allowed.
 * A Wall Street Journal investigation and declassified interviews point to the identity of “Source 3” as a disgruntled PR executive with a “vast network” of sources. A Wall Street Journal investigation and declassified interviews point to the identity of “Source 3” as a disgruntled PR executive with a “vast network” of sources.
 * "a disgruntled PR executive with a “vast network” of sources." That sounds like a pretty good source.
 * The dossier's allegation about Webzilla happens to be true. Look here: Steele_dossier
 * We don't use a lot of room to cover sources, although they are mentioned many places in the article. They actually deserve a whole article, but there would be great opposition to such an endeavor, so I have just kept some of that stuff in a sandbox (which I have neglected lately).
 * In some cases, due to BLP issues, we can't include mention because RS haven't covered them enough. Right now that's the case with Galkina. OTOH, Danchenko is mentioned in this article because many RS have mentioned him. He made several trips to Russia to gather information from his network of sources.
 * I suspect your last sentence contains a typo: "An uniformed assumption is that..." I'm not sure what you mean with that whole sentence. -- Valjean (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Another source: Key Source in Steele Dossier Identified as Disgruntled Russian PR Exec -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The IG Report discusses a Source 3 from p. 333 and onwards. Is this the same source? (I have read it now, and it sounds like a different source.) -- Valjean (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm calling this to reader's attention, but others with more opportunity will need to write it up. An interesting tid-bit from the WSJ article, though, is that Olga & Igor have been tight since 8th grade, and he periodically supports her financially. 108.18.197.8 (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why she is part of his network of sources. Sources include all types of contacts, including family and close friends. This is pretty obvious. -- Valjean (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is not obvious is that the assumption that the Russian sources are coming out of Russia: leakers, stooges, disgruntled employees, mercenary agents, etc. But, nonetheless, it's emerging out of Russia. But what we are seeing is the sources are not out of Russia, but the Russian émigrés community, in opposition to Putin. It is Russian disinformation, but from the other side. It is not disinterested, not people "wanting to help;" it represents a political agenda. Likely, for most Westerners, they're all "Russkies" and wont or can't make a differentiation. But it matters largely in the reliability and bias of the sources. Tachypaidia (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ? You seem to be saying conflicting things (that it was from within Russia, but that it wasn't from within Russia). It was both. There were many sources, many living outside of Russia, but also many living within Russia, even in Putin's office. Many sources were also unwitting sources, IOW overheard conversations and loose lips, especially within the Trump campaign. Steele's training (MI6 training seems to differ from CIA training on this point) and ethics required him to write down EVERYTHING his sources reported back, even if it seemed ridiculous. It would be fact-checked later. Unfortunately, his unfinished draft was leaked by BuzzFeed before that could happen, so blame Buzzfeed, not Steele.
 * I don't know who makes such "obvious...assumptions". Certainly not anyone who knows anything about this subject. We have always known that sources were both inside and outside of Russia. There is this funny little detail that some might be forgetting; there just happens to be communication between the two. Information gets out of Russia all the time, so ex-pats can be well-informed. Also, Danchenko and other sources did visit Russia to get information.
 * The Galkina info relates to the hacking and hackers, and she provides the insider's POV as she was an employee of a company proven to have participated in the DNC hacking. The courts did not find in Gubarev's favor on that point. Galkina was in a position to have known about the hacking and payments to the hackers, so she is not someone who could not have known. Her allegation against Cohen is still in the "unproven" category. Mueller didn't even investigate it, but just parroted Cohen's words.
 * I still can't read the WSJ article (would someone email it to me?), but the Moscow Times, and independent newspaper, has a short writeup about this, and it reveals she was very well-connected:
 * "Russia’s The Bell business news website identified Galkina as having worked as a state news agency journalist, a regional governor's spokesperson and a spokesperson for Russia’s nuclear watchdog, as well as a deputy mayor. "WSJ noted that Galkina’s past jobs in government and the private sector helped her build a “vast network of people” for the dossier."
 * The bias of many of the witting sources should be obvious. In the context of the sweeping and proven Russian interference, only those who admit it and are against it can be trusted. Putin and his friends, like Trump and Russian intelligence, are not RS in this matter. They are flat out lying. They are disinformation sources. Just as Trump has been shown to be the greatest source of coronavirus misinformation and literal fake news, he is likely the greatest source of disinformation on this matter because the President has a huge bully pulpit. You write: "Russian disinformation, but from the other side." Yes, the opposite of "Russian disinformation" is the truth.
 * Steele is on the right side of history and acted in the best interests of US national security. He was alarmed by what he discovered and immediately shared his info with the FBI and British intelligence. That certain aspects of his unfinished draft were off and inaccurate does not justify the "debunked dossier" lie. That is Russian/Trump disinformation. Its red thread and many allegations have proven to be true. -- Valjean (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * [BLP violation removed by Valjean] Burrobert (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Burrobert, that sounds funny, but it's just a counterfactual smear (and BLP violation) we can't use and which has little relevance to anything. -- Valjean (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the quote without the contentious part: In relation to the WSJ story, Mark Ames said “So the Steele Dossier that kicked off 4 years of Russiagate hysteria among the US ruling class was cooked up by two Russian[s] ... from Perm. “Gogolesque” does not begin to describe the grotesque credulity & stupidity of the American elites”. Burrobert (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still false on several points. The dossier was not the trigger for the start of the Russian interference investigation. The FBI didn't get any of the dossier until some time after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started. It then informed the investigation, but didn't have any real effect because the allegations, at that time, weren't fact-checked.
 * The dossier wasn't dependent on just two ex-pat Russians. Danchenko was not a source of information, but was a collector of information from his sub-source network, and Galkina was part of that network, with her own vast network of sources. Together they were all sources for Steele, who then collated it.
 * "Russiagate hysteria" frames what happened as unreasonable under the conditions. The very expression is a falsehood. On the contrary, it turned out that the Russians were interfering on a wide and sweeping scale, and are still doing it with Trump's active participation and encouragement. The GOP is also complicit because they refused to use the funding set aside by Congress to resist the interference, and continually back up Trump's denials that it is a problem. -- Valjean (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are some quotes from the WSJ story.
 * "In the nearly four years since they were published, many of the unverified allegations about President Trump compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele have been widely discredited, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election".
 * On the Cohen trip to Prague: "The Mueller report presented no evidence the purported Prague meeting ever happened".
 * "Mr. Danchenko told the FBI that a school friend, referred to in heavily redacted FBI notes as “Source 3”, had provided him with information for Mr. Steele “across a wide range of topics,” and stood as the dossier’s most important contributor. The former high-ranking U.S. national-security official told The Wall Street Journal that the source in question was Ms. Galkina." So Galkina was the most important source but is not mentioned in the wiki article even under the pseudonym "Source 3".
 * "Mr. Gubarev sued BuzzFeed in the U.S., where a judge dismissed the case, saying that the dossier had become a government record that the publication couldn’t be held liable for, even if it was incorrect. Mr. Gubarev has filed a libel lawsuit against Mr. Steele in the U.K." I don't think we have mentioned Gubarev's UK libel suit.
 * "The declassified FBI notes indicate U.S. federal agents distrusted Mr. Steele’s source network."
 * Burrobert (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I now have a complete copy of the article. This is the WSJ, a Trump friendly publication owned by Murdoch, who also owns Fox News and the New York Post, so they put their spin on it. Some of that is factual and some opinion. The FBI distrusts anything they haven't vetted yet, which is par for the course. They weren't even able to depose Danchenko until 2017. We already cover all but the part about Galkina, and so far this is the only RS to cover it (The Daily Mail also covers it, but it's a deprecated source), so I think it's wise to wait until other RS report on this, per the requirements for a BLP. When that happens, there are indeed factual matters about her that can be added. I have already added the decision of the High Court in the Gubarev libel suit against Steele, which found in favor of Steele (yet again). He did not intend for the draft dossier to be published, and it was published without his permission, so Gubarev could not prove he was the publisher. Hence the acquittal. Steele had briefed the press verbally in late 2016, with only one source (Mother Jones) publishing anything. No names were mentioned, so no one was libelled. Private notes can say anything. It's only if the author publishes them that libel can be asserted as a criminal charge. There are indeed libelous statements in the dossier, but Steele did not publish it. -- Valjean (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

She was supposedly 'Source 3' in the dossier, but I don't find any sources that used numbers, but several that used letters (Sources A-G). I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Please point me to the pages in the dossier that mention Source 3. -- Valjean (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - according to the WSJ article, it is the FBI that labelled this woman as "Source 3". I think the relevant FBI notes were released by the Senate Judiciary committee here. Does that answer your question?  starship .paint  (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks so much. I thought I was going crazy! I wish it was a searchable pdf. -- Valjean (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

DOJ Findings
I originally published the following language to this article:

''The above paragraph, and assertion of conspiracy theory, is directly contradicted by the Department of Justice's Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation report published in December 2019. Among the findings from the DOJ, "the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a FFG reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then-Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos 'suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)... We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."''

As Muboshgu writes: "Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Steele dossier seemed less than neutral and has been removed." When pressed on his talk page, he simply shrugged off the questions posed to him and said "this is not how we write" and "your addition is not helpful".

Muboshgu assertion lacks credibility and is the second-lowest form of disagreement in Graham's Heirarchy of Disagreement; instead of addressing the subject matter, Muboshgu has reduced himself/herself to Ad Hominem attacks.

In fact, contrary to his assertion, I made a neutral effort to leave the disputed information intact instead choosing to leave conclusions up to the reader. Conversely, Muboshgu seems content allowing for partisanal language ("conspiracy theory") within this Article when there is factual information disputing such a claim from the United States government.

Should anyone find the Department of Justice's investigation lacking, then that's their problem and I invite you to take it up with them. The fact remains, the Department of Justice has investigated this issue, transparently provided 478 pages of their findings (which reads in a very bipartisan manner), and their findings are clear (whether Muboshgu likes it or not).

It is an indication of partisanship if the Department of Justice's investigation and results are excluded from this article.

Kind Regards, Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefn2637 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your addition contradicted the previous paragraph. It actually confirmed it. The dossier had no role, and literally could not have had any role in starting the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
 * The "conspiracy theory" wording comes directly from the sources used. That's what we document here. Your edit doesn't seem to make sense. What am I missing?
 * We have this whole article (Russia investigation origins counter-narrative), which describes the conspiracy theory that falsely asserts that the Steele dossier was the trigger for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. That article explains how the Steele dossier was not the trigger for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. That was impossible, as the FBI didn't get any dossier information until much later. It was the actions of Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation, and Steele didn't even know about him until much later. -- Valjean (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging Hefn2637 and Muboshgu. -- Valjean (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not know that counter-narrative article exists. I imagine it covers all the main points around Crossfire Hurricane and the role of the dossier. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It mentions the dossier, but is mainly about the false conspiracy theory narrative pushed by Trump. He pushes, and even invents, so many that we have a whole category for them: Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, plus a List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump.
 * Next to his extreme narcissism, his most defining trait is what Obama described as Trump's "flimsy relationship with the truth." -- Valjean (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * (apologies for the lack of code to format this response properly; maybe one of you can help with that) I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. While I still hold that Mogoshgu was out of line and wrong for his Ad Hominem attacks (kudoes for User:Valjean for conducting a proper response to the subject matter), the "Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) intelligence" in the DOJ report I cited was mistaken by myself as the Steele Dossier. Accordingly, I'm in agreement that the Steele Dossier did NOT have influence over the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Sorry for my confusion. 68.97.224.138 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Robert
 * I made no ad hominem attacks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request
Str1977, in this edit you requested clarification:

Please say more. I'm not sure what needs to be clarified. Isn't it clear enough? Would adding "misleading" help? ("with the misleading headline...) It was actually counterfactual. -- Valjean (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I have added "misleading" and italicized a word which was italicized in the original quote. I hope that helps. -- Valjean (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Meddling", clarification request, part two
Str1977, you requested clarification with this edit summary: "what needs clarification is what "meddling" is supposed to mean - it is a very vague term." Fair enough. The previous time you did so, I wasn't sure what you really wanted, so your edit summary this time really helped. Let's look at it:

That's an exact quote, with the original italics. I don't see that the author uses the word in any unusual sense of the word, but just in the sense normally used to describe Trump's support of Russian interference in the 2016 election (and later, as their meddling is an ongoing problem which Trump denies and refuses to condemn). These efforts are described in the immediately preceeding paragraph in the Atlantic article: "In the end, they write, they were disappointed that the news media largely missed an important story before Election Day: that the FBI was investigating Russia’s furtive efforts to install Trump in the White House." That was indeed one of the three goals of the Russian meddling. Later in that article, we find this: "Trump actively sought foreign interference in the 2020 election." So I think it's pretty clear what "meddling" means here. It is essentially interchangeable with "interference", so wikilinking to the "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" article makes sense.

We don't normally (it's not an absolute rule) allow wikilinks in quotes, but maybe we could make an exception here. How about wikilinking to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, where "meddling" is frequently used, as the word does refer to this proven interference/meddling? Would that be a satisfactory solution? -- Valjean (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you explain "meddling" by "interference", which is just as vague, though a little less judgmental. Repeating it again and again doesn't make anything clearer so I don't get "So I think it's pretty clear what "meddling" means here." at all. I'd be okay with the link you suggested. Hopefully, that article does clear up things. Str1977 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That article does explain all facets of the Russian meddling. -- Valjean (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

✅ -- Valjean (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Strzok wrote “we are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”
Friday’s disclosure also includes a February 2017 document in which leading FBI investigator Peter Strzok acknowledges the dossier is a bust, and that the FBI still had no evidence of any wrongdoing. The New York Times on Feb. 14, 2017 published a story with this headline: “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.” (another example of propaganda from NYT).

Mr. Strzok wrote an internal FBI analysis highlighting the story’s numerous inaccuracies, explaining “we are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” He also acknowledges: “Recent interviews” reveal “Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.” The bold text needs to be included in the article (not sure what part of the article, better for another user to add it).

Especially since Strzok was such a big part of the "Russia/Trump collusion conspiracy theory"...this proves how corrupt the whole thing actually was. Circulair (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)



More from the WSJ:

The latest evidence comes from Friday’s declassification via the Senate Judiciary Committee of the FBI’s interviews, over three days in January 2017, with the primary source for the infamous Steele dossier. The bureau used the dossier’s accusations as the basis for four warrants to surveil Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 campaign and early months of the Trump Presidency. The 57 pages of notes from the source interviews make clear that the FBI knew the dossier was junk as early as January 2017. Circulair (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And the Steele dossier was not the foundation of the Russia investigation. So what's your point? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the above post is misleading, as "Friday's disclosure" is from July, and from Lindsey Graham, so likely was released to give a slanted view of events given the election. Also note: But the annotated article is also a snapshot in time — it was written before the FBI began to investigate longtime Trump associate Roger Stone, who was later indicted for obstructing the congressional investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Stone was later convicted on multiple counts and sentenced to more than three years in prison, but Trump last week commuted his sentence. And it occurred before the bureau learned of a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Circulair, do you realize we have a whole article, with myriad more sources than that NYTimes article? See Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Have fun.
 * Already from 2015, eight allied European intelligence agencies were recording secret contacts between Trump campaigners and literal Russian agents, that's spelled S.P.I.E.S.(!!), in meetings all over Europe. The Trump campaign lied about that. The findings were so alarming that our allies started reporting their findings to the CIA and/or FBI.
 * Why on earth were Trump’s people doing that so early (or at all)? Why were Russians, right after Trump’s 2013 Moscow visit, publicly saying they would support his candidacy before Americans knew he had such plans? They started planning this campaign together already back then (at the least). The dossier seems to have been right about such early exchanges of information. -- Valjean (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Take off the tin foil hat my friend or you are likely to be hit by a BLP violation. We go by RS here not your personal original research. From what I can see RS support what Circulair is saying, whereas contemporary sources do not support your conclusions. PackMecEng (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pack, I suggest your strike this odd PA. O3000 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The bureau used the dossier’s accusations as the basis for four warrants the basis? No. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It played a "central" role, but before the FBI had it, they were already at the 50-50 tipping point with other evidence. The dossier managed to push them over the line for probable cause to apply for FISA warrants. It was "the drop that makes the glass overflow," the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back." So it was not the "basis", but still had an important role.
 * Some FBI leaders have said they could have sought the FISA warrants without the dossier. They were in doubt about what to do, and the dossier made them say "We must do it." Otherwise, Carter Page's actions were suspicious enough to justify the first two warrants. -- Valjean (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the early Russian support is still online and discussed here: https://www.ajc.com/news/opinion-blogs/opinion-here-curious-thing/m14AxcrUgHZNmB6y6kA6SO/
 * Pack, you should know by now that I have no personal opinions (period) that are not obtained from RS. AGF. When I'm uncertain (my memory isn't always good), I usually indicate it. -- Valjean (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, do you still think the dossier is fake and a hoax? What about the Russia investigation? Do you believe it was a hoax? -- Valjean (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Who cares what my or your personal views are? Sounds like a forum discussion. No, we go by RS and as such as take the main stream view that they do. As you well know, at this point very few put much weight on claims from the dossier. PackMecEng (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Strzok's comments were very early, before the findings of later investigations, so they supercede his comments. The Mueller Report says:

Then Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Mannafort are mentioned in that ["Third"] paragraph. We know that Page and others also had contacts with Russians, so, per the principle of falsifiability, Strzok's statement was based on his ignorance at the time. Mueller and his team took over the Crossfire Hurricane investigation from the FBI and later found much more evidence that Strzok did not know of at the time he spoke. This content is more relevant at the Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, where it is on-topic and goes into more depth. -- Valjean (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really how it works. Your repeated reliance on original research is getting disruptive. Multiple RS have talked about Strzok's comments and per WP:PRESERVE they need to of course be in the article. From what I can tell no source you have presented mentions superseding anything nor does the original research you present actually make that point. Also side note, quit calling BLP subjects ignorant, it goes back to that BLP warning I just gave you above. Now if you think the lead is the wrong place I will add them to the a subsection if you prefer. PackMecEng (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no OR violation because this is the talk page, not the article, and a certain amount of OR and free discussion is allowed. The Mueller Report seems to clearly contradict Strzok, and it clearly supercedes Strzok's very early comments. Mentioning that Strzok was speaking from ignorance at that early point in time is not a BLP violation, just an observation that can be discussed. Maybe I'm wrong. Convince me with facts from RS. Muboshgu is right to point out the context mentioned in the Politico article: "...the annotated article is also a snapshot in time — it was written before the FBI began to investigate..." It isn't OR to notice that. That too can be discussed. The RS makes the point for us.
 * So stick to discussing content and stop attacking other editors and accusing them of OR and BLP violations. That can have a chilling effect on normal conversation and civil discussion.
 * I wouldn't completely exclude the possibility that there might be some logical spot to mention this in the body of this article, but I'm not sure where right now. Is that quote from Strzok dealing with a claim in the dossier? No, it is in response to claims in a New York Times article: "Strzok...raised strong doubts about the Times article, which described “repeated” contacts between Trump aides and Russian intelligence agents."
 * BTW, we already mention how "Strzok also indicated that Steele may not have been able to adequately judge whether the sources he relied on for his dossier were reliable." That is directly on-topic here, so it's been in this article for some time, whereas Strzok's comments about claims in a New York Times article are not. I just never saw it as relevant here.
 * As a way forward, try proposing the exact wording and spot where it has the due weight to justify inclusion. When you have a consensus, then it can be done. Until then, it's just edit warring on a DS-protected article. -- Valjean (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, at least the sources people are presenting here in an effort to argue that the quote has particular significance are opinion pieces and op-eds. We can't present the interpretations made by opinion pieces as if they were statements of fact; the fact that the WSJ's editorial board feels that this particular pull-quote is deeply decisive and important isn't particularly significant, especially since there's a tendency for such editorials to get breathless over just about everything.  Actual news reporting was sparse, brief, and doesn't seem to attach the same significance to it that the WSJ's editorial board did. (And since we're now five months out from that breathless editorial that insisted that the quote in question changed everything, I think we can safely say that no, it did not. The key summary that I can see is that many within the FBI were wary of the dosser in 2017, which we already know and which the article already says several times in numerous different ways.) The idea that it could be leadworthy is patiently absurd. --Aquillion (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The source argued here is Politico, which is not an opinion piece or op-ed. Anyhow the place to put it in my mind is under "Dossier's veracity and Steele's reputation" in the "Reputation in the U.S. intelligence community". PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also about the WSJ editorial which comments on the old February 14, 2017, New York Times article. The Politico article puts them in their place and provides better context from a recent perspective. The WSJ's attempt to make hay of an old source is pitiful.
 * Aquillion is right about the WSJ editorial. We can't use it, or use its breathless and very partisan opinion as motivation for using a very old and outdated comment by Strozk which isn't even about the dossier.
 * We do use his other comments in the original New York Times article that are relevant, and we also cite many other sources that try to poke holes in Steele's credibility many times in this article. It's scattered all through this article. Steele doesn't come off as some perfect person here. (The IG report really deals with his problematic relationship with the FBI and how his split loyalties to them and his employers at Fusion GPS created problems.)
 * I am still open to the possibility of improving our coverage of this, so today I'll examine whether we can do it. The problem is whether we can tie these mentions of contacts between Trump campaigners and Russians to the Dossier's mention of such things without getting into OR territory. That's the danger I'm seeing, but there might be RS which make that synthesis. If they do, then we might be able to use them.
 * What wording could we use, and exactly where? -- Valjean (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit in question is this which uses Politico, if you want to add the other sources that is fine but not needed. I already mentioned where in the article. So again I am not seeing a policy based reason not to add it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That edit is lacking context, as I indicated at the beginning of this thread. That's a WP:POV violation via omission. Circulair's edit was to use the Strzok quote to say there were no connections between Russia and the Trump campaign, but fails to note that Strzok wrote that early in the investigation. The Politico piece mentions a NYT article of February 2017, and so I assume that's when the Strzok note was written? As Politico notes, that's before the investigation honed in on Stone and Manafort. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an easy fix, just change the dates in the text to reflect when Politico says it happened. Not a big deal there. What would you add to put in the context you think is missing? PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The policy-based argument is that Strzok's comment there is not about the dossier but about the claims in the New York Times article. It also has no due weight because it is inaccurate and superseded by much more accurate information from Mueller and may other sources. Here are just two of the many attempts to count all the contacts: I just don't see how it has due weight because: I'm just not convinced...yet. -- Valjean (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Jan 26, 2019 - "Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition, according to a New York Times analysis. "The report of Robert S. Mueller III, released to the public on Thursday, revealed at least 30 more contacts beyond those previously known. However, the special counsel said, “the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges."
 * 2) Apr 30, 2019 - "A total of 272 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia-linked operatives have been identified, including at least 38 meetings. And we know that at least 33 high-ranking campaign officials and Trump advisers were aware of contacts with Russia-linked operatives during the campaign and transition, including Trump himself. None of these contacts were ever reported to the proper authorities. Instead, the Trump team tried to cover up every single one of them."
 * 1) it's not about the dossier;
 * 2) it's outdated;
 * 3) it's inaccurate;
 * 4) it's misleadingly taken out of context as part of a really lousy political slur campaign;
 * 5) there is no consensus to include it.
 * The last few points you mention from outdated on are not policy based or backed by RS but again your own WP:OR. It really needs to be backed by RS. No idea where you came up with the "really lousy political slur campaign" either nor do I see it as helpful here. Now you mention it is not about the dossier, I am wondering how you came to that conclusion when in the Politico article right after it continues to talk about Strzok and the dossier. PackMecEng (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My first sentence is about the policy-based reason. The others are good reasons too. We are allowed to use common sense WP:OR in discussions here, just not in articles. The WSJ editorial is a political smear and ignores contrary evidence.
 * The Politico article has content of various types. The parts that are about the dossier are already used in this dossier article, whereas the part about Strzok's notations are about his reaction to the New York Times article, not the dossier, hence that part is undue here. -- Valjean (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are using OR to justify changes in the article. That is not how OR can be used. Please stop labeling RS political smears without any evidence to back your claim. Now to the undue aspect. So we have a major RS reporting what an official that headed the investigation stated. I find it hard to believe that would be undue, even from just a historic perspective. Especially since the RS does talk about the dossier in the article in relation to the subject and you know a head of the investigation stating basically a central aspect of the dossier is bunk is notable. PackMecEng (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to relitigate that as it leads down a rabbit hole. I have already stated what needs to be said and will let others weigh in. If my arguments are defective, I'm sure others will point it out. -- Valjean (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is that if you take out the breathless WSJ editorial, the sources that remain don't highlight this as something particularly important. eg. the Politico source says But the annotated article is also a snapshot in time — it was written before the FBI began to investigate longtime Trump associate Roger Stone, who was later indicted for obstructing the congressional investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election ... Still, the document adds to a portrait painted by similar disclosures in recent weeks. That doesn't sound like something worth putting in the lead. I'm not seeing where it says that this is a new, significant revelation that uniquely shows that basically a central aspect of the dossier is bunk in the Politico piece, either - again, that's a personal interpretation from the WSJ piece. The Politico piece is if anything largely dismissive of its overall importance. --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lets just ignore the WSJ piece for the moment as that seems to be a sticking point, Politico is more than enough on it's own. Also as I mention above this is no longer about in the lead but the "Reputation in the U.S. intelligence community". Which I think as head of the investigation it gives a useful insight to their views of the time. PackMecEng (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Background for Russia investigation
This subject is touched on above, so here's more information. Most of this is found in many articles here, but this is my layout that does not contradict any of our articles. It is provided for the enlightenment of those who may need this info, and it is extensively sourced.

There were a number of reasons why the investigations into the Russian's "sweeping and systematic" election interference led to suspicion, investigations, and surveillance of the Trump campaign in efforts to determine the nature of the election interference and the relationships between Russians and Trump campaign members. It started with routine surveillance of Russian assets by foreign agencies, not as part of any surveillance of the Trump campaign. That surveillance was started in late July 2016, by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Foreign surveillance
Over a period of several months, starting in August 2015, and before U.S. intelligence agencies started any investigations, they began to receive alarming reports from eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) describing overheard conversations between known Russian agents and Trump campaign members. The conversations "formed a suspicious pattern", and while their nature is known by intelligence agencies, it has not been revealed to the public.

In September 2015, the FBI discovered that a Russian cyber group had hacked the DNC's servers. The FBI then attempted, without success, to warn the DNC. Seven months later the DNC hired private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which also found that the Russians were behind the hacks.

Then, in April 2016, the FBI received a tape-recorded conversation from a Baltic state "about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign". The Dutch also reported how they watched a group of Russians hacking the DNC.

The New York Times also reported that British and Dutch agencies had evidence of more secret meetings between Trump campaign members and Russian officials in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries, and that U.S. intelligence had overheard Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, talking about contacts with Trump associates. Some Russian officials were arguing about how much to interfere in the election. Then cyber attacks on state electoral systems led the Obama administration to directly accuse the Russians of interfering.

Because the CIA is not allowed to surveil the private communications of American citizens without a warrant, the CIA and FBI were slow to react to these revelations.

About myriad contacts:


 * Jan 26, 2019 - Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian...
 * Apr 30, 2019 - A total of 272 contacts between Trump's team and Russia-linked...

Hacking and email leaks
In September and November 2015, the FBI warned the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that one of their computers had been hacked and was sending information back to Russia. On March 19, 2016, the Russians gained access to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails. Then an unwitting revelation by George Papadopoulos revealed that he knew, seven weeks before the FBI, that the Russians possessed emails stolen from Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign did not reveal this to the FBI, but the Australian ambassador did. It was this revelation which started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.

In sworn testimony, Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen stated that Trump knew in advance that WikiLeaks would leak the hacked Democratic emails. Trump also repeatedly praised and thanked WikiLeaks and publicly asked the Russians to find Hillary's emails. Russian officials began efforts to hack her server and the Clinton campaign servers "on or around" the same day as Trump's request.

Investigations were necessary, appropriate, and legal
When James Comey was asked about using informants with Papadopoulos, he described why this surveillance was necessary:

James Baker, referring to the Papadopoulos information, described why this surveillance was appropriate, lawful, legitimate, and apolitical:

Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor, described the FBI investigation as their "duty":

Although Attorney General Barr has not claimed that surveillance of the Trump campaign was improper, Trump has suggested it was illegal and treasonous. FBI Director Christopher Wray has testified that "he does not consider court-approved FBI surveillance to be 'spying'", and that he saw "no evidence the FBI illegally monitored President Donald Trump's campaign during the 2016 election."

Blurring the lines between defamation and data protection
This analysis of the Gubarev v Orbis case might be usable, so saving here. Valjean (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Face detail, Manafort Mug Shot (cropped).jpg

Non-RS
I would suggest that the Showbiz411 ref be deleted, as Showbiz411 is not an RS, per USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. --2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Each source, and the content used from it, must be judged on a case-by-case basis. That applies to all sources. Neither USERGENERATED nor SELFPUB apply to this content. It is a secondary-source documenting what a primary source (Van Zandt's tweet) says. That's a perfectly appropriate way to use it. There is no question about accuracy, and it isn't even being used to make any type of interpretation, although we could quote, with attribution, its "This is how deft a liar Cohen is– that he could have combined details, inflated them to bigger meaning, and used them as a distraction. So we do know that Cohen was in Rome in the summer of 2016. And now reports are saying that he was also outside Prague later in the summer.", but we don't.
 * Instead, we stick to the very bare minimum to document a simple fact from a first-person witness. We leave it up to readers to conclude whether Cohen is or is not a liar in this instance (something which he has admitted being paid to do when defending Trump). -- Valjean (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFPUB says unequivocally: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people .." There is zero gray. If you have an RS source for that, go at it. But it is clearly not acceptable to use this self-published source as a ref. --2603:7000:2143:8500:95D3:5A5F:D9B5:5BA4 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ??? Please explain how this is a self published source. You must know something I don't. Is this Roger's own website? I'm not familiar with its background.
 * More importantly, is the content we're citing Roger's opinion, or is it Van Zandt's description of events, with the source being a secondary source vehicle for the content, thus avoiding an WP:OR violation? -- Valjean (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is the self-published website of RF. It is being used as a source about a living person. WP:SELFPUB says unequivocally: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people .." It does not have an exception that says "unless the self published source is reporting on what it says is a fact." 2603:7000:2143:8500:95D3:5A5F:D9B5:5BA4 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is called Roger Fredimans Showbiz*411, the article was written by Roger Friedman, so yes it looks like an SPS, owned edited and written by one bloke.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, it does seem that way. I'd like to learn more. What type of site is it? Is he considered a subject matter expert, and if so, what subjects? -- Valjean (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What type of site is it? It's as Slatersteven says. That type of site. Run by a disgraced former freelancer gossip journalist, who was fired by Fox, and then not renewed by his next employer, and no publication has chosen to pick him up in a decade - so .. not an expert. And even if he were an expert - per the guideline - "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people .." Slatersteven - I think it should be removed as well. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6D46:2616:9B20:C246 (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed that source. Roger Friedman is not quoted, nor are his opinions used. In fact, they never were. (BTW, since his article does quote unquestionable facts, multiple RS have used it.) Since we already use Washington Monthly, I have reworked the content and provided an attributed statement showing the relevance for that content about Rome, Capri, and Van Zandt. Cohen was unquestionably trying to provide an alibi disproven by several people. -- Valjean (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The issue was always the nature of the source. As always, where there is a good source, the text can remain. But the non-RS source should be removed, as you have kindly done. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6D46:2616:9B20:C246 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working with me and patiently providing the background for that source. -- Valjean (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

✅ -- Valjean (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of including random opinion
I removed an opinion from a random former prosecutor on grounds of UNDUE but also potentially BLP, but Valjean reverted. The text is According to former federal prosecutor Pete Zeidenberg, such "false statements to Comey about the trip could demonstrate that Trump has 'consciousness of guilt'. The fake pee tape section contains 10 paragraphs and almost 1,200 words, so does the opinion of this former prosecutor belong in the article? What context does it add that the other 10 paragraphs don't? Alleging that Trump has "consciousness of guilt" may also be a BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:BLP. You might say it's UNDUE, but it is certainly not a BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to stop stalking my comments - it is getting extremely creepy. Do you care to weigh in on the topic with any substance or just snipe at me? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you're feeling creepy. But a quick check would show you I've been quite active on this page for years. And WP:CRYBLP is a substantive response, as was my observation that with additional detail you may, in fact, have a valid NPOV argument.  SPECIFICO talk 03:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As a general comment, this article is nearly 360k bytes. Almost 5 times longer than War and Peace and 1.5x that of World War II. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A valid point, and removing one line does not really go any way towards rectifying that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, I would have removed nearly the entire section but it would have surely been reverted. So we can go piece by piece. Do you think that bit should be in or out? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent, I am not sure what it adds, but it is only one line.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if inclusion could have been justified in April 2018 when the Politico article was published, the attributed speculation about what Mueller might find by a former federal prosecutor no longer seems to have any lasting significance to an encyclopedic project. Just my two cents.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This sentence provides context for why Trump's deceptive alibis were seen as significant, and are part of why this whole pee tape matter stayed alive, even though Steele only gave it a fifty-fifty chance of being true. He treated everything in the dossier as raw intelligence material—not proven fact. If Trump hadn't lied, attention to the allegation would have died down faster. IMO, it's too bad Steele's MI6 training required him to include it, as it provided Trump and the media with a convenient and sensational distraction from the more serious and main thrust of the dossier, which has proven true.

Normally we tend to brush off many of Trump's statements because he lies constantly and about nearly everything, big or small (not a BLP violation as we have articles and abundant RS to prove it's true), but his unforced attempts to minimize his presence and actions in Moscow are significant because they figure into how legal subject matter experts evaluate the truth or falsity of what Trump allegedly said and did there. Zeidenberg's view backs up Comey's identical view on the matter (Comey has extensively described what he saw as Trump's evident consciousness of guilt, something which changed his mind from a denier to a maybe peeliever), so this is not some random or immaterial voice on the matter. Zeidenberg spent 17 years at the Justice Department.

We do not limit article content to factoids, and we don't delete content because it's unfavorable to Trump. We should continue to resist all efforts to whitewash his history. Our job requires us to include experts' interpretative opinions when they provide more context. Comey and Zeidenberg are such experts. This content is conservatively written, properly sourced and attributed, and should be kept. Readers can do with it what they want, but they should know that legal experts view Trump's lies through this lens. It is part of our job to provide things like this. -- Valjean (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the relevance of Trump's alleged false statements is that it kept the story alive, then the article should say that, citing a source that makes that claim. This isn't a murder mystery dinner party, where we provide clues to the punters and let them piece together what happened. Unless that link is explicitly made, all we have is a random observation by an obscure lawyer. It's not even a significant claim: of course false statements to investigators could imply guilt.
 * BLP is an issue, since stating that Trump lied to investigators, which is an offense, is accusing Trump of criminal activity although he has not been convicted.
 * TFD (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , since there’s not a single shred of evidence the fake pee tape exists, there’s nothing to whitewash. Half of this article is irrelevant speculation. This evidence free assertion by someone nobody has ever heard of before should be removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would expect that kind of objection from a random visitor who has no clue about policies, how we build content, and why we try to preserve properly sourced content. Nothing in your comment is remotely attached to any policies, so I'll discount it as an obvious "I don't like it" objection.
 * The status quo and very long-standing (since November 14, 2019) version should stay as is (that is policy) until we've had a thorough discussion and reached a solid consensus that references policies. All content in this article is extremely well-sourced. The truth, falsity, existence, or non-existence of anything in an allegation is irrelevant. RS are what counts, and all the content is based on that. Unfortunately, this happens to deal with the most notable allegation in the dossier. Interestingly, it's an allegation believed by Russians from long before the dossier was written. -- Valjean (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s UNDUE in a section that’s 4x longer than it needs to be. There isn’t any actual evidence in the entire section, so a random speculation adds nothing. Not everything a RS reports is DUE content for an encyclopedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Any actual evidence?" What does that have to do with anything? "Any actual RS coverage" is the proper question, as that is what determines due weight, and now you've deleted the most thorough analysis of the existence or non-existence of the purported pee tape, which covers all media mentions? (She concludes that the one on the internet is likely a good fake.) What on earth is that kind of editing? It certainly violates many policies and practices here. The due weight of the pee tape allegation has zero to do with whether the allegation is true or whether the tape even exists, and everything to do with the coverage it has gotten. Our personal feelings and beliefs do not determine due weight or amount of content, yet you're editing in that manner. We must give it the coverage that RS give it. You should self-revert and start a discussion in another section. -- Valjean (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

, find three reliable sources and it can go in. Deal? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , let's be careful not to make ad hoc rules not found in policy. The idea you suggest does apply (at least that's how I apply it) to BLP's WP:Public figure situations, but not to opinions and other content found in RS. We don't have to have three or more citations to the idea of "consciousness of guilt" before we can include one such mention. Comey also shares this view. Trump's deceptive denials and so-called alibis raised the suspicions of many in law enforcement, as well as others.
 * Otherwise, we could build this content better (make it a subsection called "Consciousness of guilt") by adding more from Comey, who thought it was "significant" that Trump lied to him twice; that Trump's actions "reflected consciousness of guilt"; and in several sources (including this one) has described "two tells" which Trump inadvertently revealed to him:


 * Using that source, we could then create this content, adding it to the Zeidenberg quote that has been deleted without any policy-based reason for doing so.


 * My proposed solution is to strengthen this content (by adding about four more inches and two more sources to the sentence, as it's a matter which Trump, Comey, and others have always viewed as very significant. Our job is to improve, not destroy and weaken, our content. The claims of "undue" are bogus. -- Valjean (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:UNDUE. A single source is easily argued as undue. Three, not so much. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is three sources out of myriad others we could include that comment on the subject of the Comey interview. Just face the fact that "undue" is being used as a rubber nose excuse to delete "I don't like it" content, in this case a whitewashing protection of Trump. No other policies are being cited to justify calling it undue. "Undue" is often abused in the same manner that "consensus" gets abused when it is used to mean "we agree we don't like it" without mention of any other policies.
 * ec... Consensus and undue should never be cited as standalone policies. They should always be based on other existing policies. If no policies are cited, then the claims should be ignored as just a local tyranny of the majority. OTOH, if that majority is saying "our consensus is based on this and this policy," then the word suddenly means something. Otherwise not. The same with "undue". It should be based on other cited policies. Unless I have missed something, no such reasoning is evident above. I only see them cited as weak and pitiful standalone arguments. It's like seeing scientific claims without any evidence. I'm asking for the evidence. Otherwise, we're looking at quackery.
 * BTW, an interview with Comey is significant and not undue on its own, especially when it cites Trump and Trump's own manic fascination with this topic. -- Valjean (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please don’t add anything else to that bloated section. You seem to be saying that because a RS mentioned a blurb about something, it must be added to the article. I don’t agree with that, as news stories are not inherently encyclopedic, and I don’t think that’s in line with policy. The fake pee tape adds nothing to the article - it’s a fake. There’s probably a hundred on the internet, so who cares?. A speculation by an attorney adds nothing to the article - everyone has an opinion. I’m going to be making more trims to this article and I hope you’ll be on board. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What policy are you citing? An interview with the FBI director about a discussion with Trump in which Trump lied more than once is "unencyclopedic"? On what planet is that not significant?
 * The "pee tape" may be fake or it may not. We do not know, and that is totally irrelevant to the topic. Have myriad RS discussed it? Yes. Is it the most notable allegation in the dossier? Yes. Do RS still mention it every single day? Yes. (My Google Alerts tell me so.) Do the GOP and extreme right-wing sources still mention it every single day? Yes.
 * Coverage in RS elevates rumors, lies, conspiracy theories, quackery, etc. to notable subjects we are required to cover here. That's how it works here. You should know that, but you continue to ignore the most basic of policies that govern the creation and preservation of content here. It is your opinion that the pee tape is fake. Fine. It may be. So what? That's irrelevant. -- Valjean (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, since your "trims" are not based in policy, but just on your personal preference, sources be damned, you really shouldn't do such trimming without a good discussion and agreement first. Long-standing content is consensus content, so start a discussion on specific topics and seek a consensus for change. Do it one at a time. That's the proper way to work and avoid edit warring on this very controversial article. Most experienced editors know that such an approach often results in positive changes here, usually because they are not deletionists and cite specific policies, while solo deletions of long-standing content usually results in contention. Try to avoid that. -- Valjean (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with sources, and everything to do with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Shift gears from the reliably sourced stuff. It’s obviously sourced, but not encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What are your standards for "encyclopedic"? To me encyclopedic includes, as in this case, abundant RS, very notable topic, very notable individuals, interesting and controversial events, such as the President repeatedly lying to the FBI Director. That qualifies. "Not news" doesn't apply to this. -- Valjean (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , lets have a proposed paragraph with sources and we can have an RfC. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

- sloppy writing there, you can do better. Comey viewed Trump's two false denials as lies is false. According to the interview, Comey says: "... I don't know what was in his head, I don't know whether he was intentionally misstating a fact to me, or maybe when he said it to me he thought he stayed overnight, but he said, I didn't - I'm sorry - that he didn't stay overnight, but he definitely said that." Also false is the quote attributed to Zeidenberg, when it was the Politico writer Schreckinger's quote.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comey was agreeing with Cooper, so it's not false that he considered Trump's statements to be lies. I guess it comes down to better wording and attribution, which you have done below. We just need to make that point clear. Comey thought Trump was lying. -- Valjean (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, I did find one additional source regarding Comey's comment and one additional source regarding Zeidenberg's comment.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposing. Denials of specific accusations, Donald Trump section. No need for "consciousness of guilt" section with just the above material.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Starship.paint, as usual you write and parse things well. Thanks for your excellent insights and improvements. I think your version is much better than the original, and that a subsection won't be necessary with this version. -- Valjean (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's better but per the original point of this section the last sentence is not needed. There's already too much speculation and mind reading in the article, it may be this or may be that. What is DUE about this particular former federal prosecutor's opinion? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is simply the widespread assessment of informed expert observers. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, "speculation and mind reading" from editors is not allowed as article content, but such opinions from others, when published in RS, is often welcome content. That's because our job goes far beyond the mere documentation of facts (the existence of a serious allegation -- that Russian intelligence filmed prostitutes performing acts at the command of Trump -- is a fact).
 * Experienced editors here should understand the gradation of source quality and desirablity here, and it is illustrated nicely in the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart. Look at the left side of the screen. We like sources that provide "Fact reporting", but they are rarely enough. So what if a rock is lying in the middle of a street? We want to know "why" it's there, among other things. Opinions about "why" are important content. We really like "Analysis" or "Mix of fact reporting and analysis". That's because the analysis, especially from subject matter experts, tells us the real significance of the dry facts.
 * It is a fact that the allegation exists, and we are required to document it, so whether it exists or not, we clearly document what RS say about the pee tape allegation. It is also a fact that Trump unnecessarily lied at least twice to Comey, and Comey noted that as "significant". (Cohen also lied unnecessarily about the Prague allegation.) Other subject matter experts like Zeidenberg share Comey's opinion that Trump revealed "consciousness of guilt". The lies were so significant that Comey, who originally thought the allegation to be wild and likely not true, changed his mind and began to entertain the suspicion that it might be true, a scary thought, seen from a national security perspective. Comey's "analysis" tells us the significance of the dry facts. That's why this is important content:
 * "COOPER: You’ve noticed that in past interactions with a prosecutor. If someone is lying about stuff you haven’t asked about, that’s a tell? COMEY: Right, two tells. If they bring things up you didn’t ask about, and if they bring it up and make a false statement about it, that’s — it’s not definitive, but it certainly makes you very concerned about what might be going on there."
 * Since all the leaders of our intelligence agencies have publicly stated their belief that Putin has something on Trump and that he acts like a Russian "asset" (not "agent"), his false denials here, and failure to ever criticize Putin, increase the concern that he acts like a man who is being blackmailed and acting in favor of the worst enemy of the USA. That's why the Russia investigation is not a "hoax" and the dossier not a "fake" document. These investigation are serious business, all inspired by Trump's own actions. -- Valjean (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above assessments that the statement is undue and of no real value besides pushing an insinuation. PackMecEng (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the Comey content, leaving out Zeidenberg., you say Zeidenberg's opinion is the widespread assessment of informed expert observers. Surely you will be able to provide more examples of similar opinions in reliable sources?  starship .paint  (exalt) 05:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't you look at the hatted list of sources Valjean gave just above? There are many more you can easily find if you wish, but those are sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 08:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks starship, good job. I'm going to start a new discussion on the fake pee tape section that you recently rewrote. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Existence of fake pee tape
Does the Kompromat / golden showers section need a paragraph regarding a fake pee tape that a Slate journalist debunked? I'm not sure what context this adds to the article, as it seems irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the sourcing, but more of an UNDUE thing - why is a fake pee tape notable enough for inclusion in an already too long article? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, May 11, 2021‎ (UTC)
 * Wrong heading, wrong questions, wrong assumptions. -- Valjean (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think the article in general is too long and needs some editorial trimming? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but improvement is always welcome. The policy for that is here: WP:PRESERVE, IOW tweak, and do not remove properly sourced content unless absolutely necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother - the reliable sources for this article are a hall of infinitely reflecting mirrors.Shtove (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it could be condensed a lot. It is helpful to illustrate that one of the most widely reported claims of the thing is pure BS peddled for political gain. Which goes a long way towards informing the reader on how seriously it should be taken overall and how RS treat it. On the larger topic of article trimming, I bet you could remove almost every other sentence and not much of value would be lost. PackMecEng (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree but there’s a few editors who need to be on board or else it would all be blanket reverted. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Follow WP:PRESERVE. We build and improve here. We do not destroy, write summaries or outlines, use historical revisionism to remove the historical flow of events and revelations, or reduce to the bare minimum. We write comprehensive content that reflects all the nitty gritty details provided by RS. A person who reads the whole article should no longer have any questions about what RS have said, and if you find any holes, please fill them. Removal of content must not remove the answers to questions. That would be a disservice to readers.
 * I get the impression that some here have not really read the article and all the content which disses/criticizes/argues against the reliability of the dossier and its allegations, and also the criticisms of Steele. There is a lot of that located at the relevant spots. We welcome more RS which demonstrate "how RS treat it." -- Valjean (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Preserve is not the problem. The problem is basically covered by WP:DON'T PRESERVE and WP:NOT. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, so be very specific about removing anything. DON'T PRESERVE refers to specific policies. Try to improve content, not just delete it. Otherwise, PRESERVE still rules:


 * Valjean (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone here has been referring to specific policies. As well as giving examples on how and why they apply. Deleting poor or undue content is MORE important than trying to find excuses to preserve it simply because it is sourced. Which goes straight to one of our pillars, WP:V and more specifically WP:VNOT which states While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. PackMecEng (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the griping has been of the "I don't like it variety", with occasional citing of policies in a manner that reveals lack of understanding of what they mean. Stay away from the vague policies like consensus, due weight, and NOT. One must be very specific if one wishes to convince. -- Valjean (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot like an "I don't like it variety" argument on your end actually. Not liking their policy based arguments is no reason to hand wave them away as you know. PackMecEng (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that this is all about Steele dossier, yes I'm sure it can be trimmed, and potentially without sacrificing any content. If those who want to see it trimmed can produce some changes they'd like to implement, we can discuss them. Otherwise, this has the hallmarks of one of those threads where people yammer on and nothing gets done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this section could be 4 paragraphs. I would propose a wording but Valjean does not seem to be on board with any significant reductions. Therefore it’s a waste of time if it’s just going to be reverted and stonewalled on the talk page. If we can get an agreement beforehand what the target is then we can be successful. This approach should then be applied to the rest of the article. There’s no reason this article needs to be 360k bytes (aka one of the largest on the project). I saw making the case recently for a similar trim to another needlessly oversized article. It has been very difficult to get a single superfluous sentence removed, requiring several days and several thousand words, despite a mostly obvious consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu. You are always welcome to propose wordings right here that improve the article. I would caution against any arbitrary number of paragraphs. Only the WP:Lead has such a rule, and even that is flexible. Content is governed by RS coverage. More coverage often means more content. That is what should determine the amount and weight of coverage of a topic here. Deletion of content and RS can easily violate that principle. We want thorough coverage. Instead of an arbitrary idea of what size to aim for, attempts to improve content should focus on reducing duplication, redundancy, unnecessarily long and wordy sentences that can be written better, etc. There is a long list of ways to improve content at PRESERVE Editing policy. Good copy editing is always welcome as long as it is not an attempt to whitewash and remove content one does not like. -- Valjean (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are countless RS that document events, and it is our job to summarize them accordingly to create an encyclopedia article. Let's take WW2 for example - if we were to build that article according to RS coverage, it would be thousands of times larger than it is. There is no policy that says you can only add content as RS coverage grows. That leads to a situation like we have with this article - it is extremely long, hard to read, and gives UNDUE weight to minor opinions. As PME already wrote - While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article (emphasis mine). Just about everyone but you who has weighed in here agrees that this article needs significant trimming. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe let's start approaching it like this: what are the main points of the pee tape that we need to keep? I'd say Trump's denial of staying overnight in Moscow should stay, as well as the proof that he was there over 24 hours. Then other things debunking the existence of the tape would stay. It's difficult to read through in the current state that it's in, so condensing would help. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The main points are that the dossier alleges such an event happened and a tape exists, Trump denies it but was present at the hotel, Comey's thoughts regarding Trump's denials, and perhaps a few other opinions from notable commentators. That's really all we need. This section, with detailed descriptions of Trump's activities in Moscow and lunches and meetings and packing and an opinion by a music publicist are completely irrelevant and should be excised wholesale:


 * Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC) (properly signing this - I had composed this in reply link which didn't go through and when I copied it over to the edit window I forgot to add the tildes.


 * I think we can cut that material without losing anything, aside from maybe the Facebook post sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I'm weighing on this a bit late. I do think that the fake pee tape material should be kept. I think that it offers a great service to educate readers that this particular tape is a hoax. Readers will learn how it is decisively debunked. We're guiding readers towards truth here, and away from misinformation.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Starship.paint, do you have any idea where Feinberg got the idea that this particular pee tape (a video of a video being played) was filmed in the presidential suite "as it appeared post-renovation in 2016"? She provides no source for that, and AFAIK she's the only one who makes that claim. Have you seen any evidence to back that claim? It would be great to have an expert forensic analysis of the film. -- Valjean (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

- not sure forensic analysis is possible: Jamieson Fry, a visual effects artist turned director in Los Angeles, told me that “filming a handheld video of another video playing on a screen absolutely destroys the quality, and is exactly the kind of thing you’d do to intentionally obscure detail and sell a fake.” As for the renovation issues:  starship .paint  (exalt) 01:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 starship .paint  (exalt) 01:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent RS Analysis
Here are a few recent RS that paint the dossier and Mr. Steele in a different light than comes across in the current article. I'll be making some attempts in the near future to incorporate some of the more recent assessments. The Nation, NYT, and a book by an ex-NYT reporter. The thrust of the recent RS characterizations has been that Steele used unverified material not from high level sources but news outlets and their own imaginations to manipulate journalists into covering the explosive claims. The current version of our article still gives undue weight to the unverified allegations and does not include the major problems with the allegations that recent RS document. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true, which is dubious, Mr. Steele has no power to manipulate RS mainstream journalists to printing false information or to compromise their journalistic standards. Seems like this latest claim is really grasping at straws. Not a credibly supported objection. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The claims are made by RS such as the NYT, conveniently linked for you in the above comment. If you disagree or think the claims are dubious, that would be a matter for RSN. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why WP considers the content verified. It's now unclear why you do not. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read the linked sources? They are the ones making the claims. What "content" are you talking about? I'm specifically referencing the more recent information from the 3 sources that I linked. What's "unclear" to you? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They are strongly biased opinions published in RS. One is from a book. None of that means they cannot be considered for use, just that what's chosen for content would hopefully be something new and also attributed properly. I don't recall any criticisms of Steele or the dossier that we don't already mention from other sources, but I might have missed something. I look forward to see what you've found.
 * Go ahead and show us your proposed additions from those sources. That's what this talk page is good for, and that's also how we avoid edit warring. Content that is developed through collaboration gains consensus and has staying power. Potentially contentious content should be discussed first. For non-contentious content, BOLD applies. -- Valjean (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , The Nation is a primary polemical opinion piece and not usable. Meier may be OK if there are third party sources discussing the book (per UNDUE) since this is a contentious topic and opinions are not in short supply - but the book and his NYT piece are not two separate things, they are both by the same author. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I initially thought that about the Nation but the entry at the RSN perennial sources was green and generally considered reliable. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I support Mr Ernie's position to update and correct the errors that resulted from inaccurate reports by mainstream media. This article is much too long with way too much irrelevant detail and it is unwieldy at 124kB of readable prose (not counting the indented prose and bullet lists which add at least another 1/3 to the total count); it's a book about unsubstantiated claims comprising opposition research which makes it inherently politically biased, not to mention being sourced to biased sources. Almost all of the allegations, if not all, have been discredited relative to Russian collusion - there was no evidence of any collusion and that is what the Steele dossier was supposed to prove. As for JzG's comment about The Nation being biased, I have to ask, biased in what way? The Nation is a progressive source, and it's considered generally reliable (see WP:RSP). Regardless, we use INTEXT for biased opinions. Perhaps also DUE is some of the material in the article by Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept, as well as material in the Rollingstone article by Matt Taibbi. The article by Sharyl Attkisson titled New Russia probe memos expose massive errors in NYT anti-Trump story, Steele dossier brought to light quite a bit of factual information that can be corroborated regarding the errors published by the NYT, some of which Strzok & Comey referred to as misleading and inaccurate per the links I've provided - it's all there. But let's not settle for a single source because the material can be cited to multiple RS. Did the NYT retract or correct any of the mentioned errors, and have we been keeping up with the retractions so that our articles comply with NPOV and are factually accurate? This AP report speaks loudly to the 6 Trump associates that take up nearly half of this article. Why? There was no evidence of any Russian collusion. How much of this article is actually relevant to the dossier or its purpose? The newly revealed documents that were previously kept from the public are absolutely DUE because they have a direct bearing on the credibility of the Steele dossier, Steele himself and biased media's handling of the entire Russian collusion conspiracy. This article in its current state raises quite a few questions about editorial judgement, NPOV and fact-checking for accuracy, but only because we've been mirroring the misleading and inaccurate material published by some of our RS. As for the reliability of the material and the cited sources...we wouldn't have nearly as many problems if we adhered more closely to RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, NEWSORG, NPOV, and V. And here is another glimpse at some of our most trusted RS screwing up according to CNN: Washington Post, New York Times, and NBC News retract reports on Giuliani. One would have to be very naive to believe mainstream news sources are not biased, or that they diligently fact-check for accuracy in light of all the retractions we've seen since media began publishing on the internet, not to mention the revocation of the FCC fairness doctrine. The Wrap reported a CNN screw-up, and there are many others in today's echo chamber and clickbait environment. It's exactly like I've been saying all along about exercising caution, and RECENTISM - but it is what it is, and all we can do is make the best of it.  Atsme 💬 📧 02:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The article should be more clear about the dossier's lack of credibility. I don't think mainstream media ever said the dossier was credible, it's just that they didn't provide any opinions on its credibility. As the importance of the dossier fades, reliable sources increasingly cast doubt on its credibility. Mind you, one would have to be pretty gullible to place any trust in it in the first place. TFD (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD, Steele had doubts about certain allegations, and we document those doubts. The mainstream media has always had doubts about the dossier's credibility, and we document those doubts. They have also provided plenty of opinions about its credibility, and we also document those opinions, which are all over the place. Take a look in these sections:
 * Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations
 * Dossier's veracity and Steele's reputation
 * Reactions to dossier
 * You'll find plenty of doubts and criticisms there.
 * Now some editors want to selectively remove the opinions and facts they don't like and leave a one-sided picture. That's not right. The dossier remains an unfinished draft, a collection of raw data that was never supposed to be published. The allegations are all over the place, with some corroborated, others uncorroborated, some possibly untrue, and many impossible to corroborate, so we don't know their status. There is no evidence it is a hoax or fake, and the FBI examined and rejected the very real possibility that it contained planted, false, data from Russian intelligence. It's flawed. No doubt about that, and we document what RS say about that. What more can we do?
 * The mainstream media largely ignores the dossier, but unreliable sources daily attack it, often by ignoring the proven facts about it that are inconvenient to their false narratives. When unreliable sources keep a narrative alive, it's unwise to give it credence or think that their opinions have enough weight to justify action here. We are not supposed to revise content here because of what they write. Such revisionism should be resisted. -- Valjean (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you please re-read the lead. While doubts are mentioned, the impression is that the dossier was accurate. "The media...have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations, while Trump denounced it as fake news]]. Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated." The implication is that it is probably accurate, just not entirely proved, and the only people refuting the facts are conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't stop with that quote. The "some aspects" is specified as only certain details ("in particular its main allegations that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton[31][23] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians.[32][33]"), and then this follows: "However, many allegations in the dossier remain unverified" and "...have described it as "deeply flawed"." That content, placed centrally in the lead, is not exactly something which cultivates confidence in the dossier. One gets the clear impression that it is deeply flawed, with much that is unverified. That explains why the mainstream media has always been cautious with it, and also why the FBI did not use the pee tape allegation when they sought the FISA warrants. They used other allegations, those which harmonized with the information they had confirmed with other sources. Later the Mueller Report described widespread collusion (cooperation, welcoming, encouraging, defending, and facilitating of election interference) and obstruction of justice, but was prevented from proving actual, formal, "conspiracy". Since what actually happened (real collusion) is more important than what was not proven (conspiracy), harping on "conspiracy was not proven" is not a convincing distraction from the far worse actuality. (You are not doing this, but it is done all the time by unreliable sources.)
 * The lead is based on content in the body. Is there something else in the body that could be used as justification for tweaking the lead? BTW, thanks for being specific. This is good. -- Valjean (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is overly reliant on the flurry of reporting (and opinions, most just pure speculation from the likes Max Boot of all people...) from years ago. Recent assessments of the Dossier have almost all been negative, focusing on how the things that have been "corroborated" were already widely covered in public reporting from the time. There are no original claims in the Dossier that have turned out to be true. Also telling is what is written in Wikivoice and what is attributed. The "deeply flawed" is attributed as opinions to two NYT writers, instead of the informed consensus of later coverage, and "a court ruled" that another claim was inaccurate and misleading rather than simply stating that it was. It is also somewhat disingenuous to say that editors are trying to remove opinions and facts they don't like to leave a one-sided picture. The picture is currently very one-sided and takes a reader a very long time to read it. Most of the editors aside from Valjean seem to agree the article is too long, gives UNDUE attention to opinion and speculation, and needs dramatic updates to bring it in line with the current RS viewpoints. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)