Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 23

Adam Schiff
On a tangentially-related note, Mr Ernie reverted some changes I had made. I had been pondering it in my dreams and awoke with the conclusion that I needed to revert and rework that content, and it turns how he beat me to it! I do not agree with his edit summary. Adam Schiff is an extremely RS on this topic. He was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, member of the Gang of Eight, and has top security clearance. In this case, his bias doesn't make him inaccurate, and his opinion happens to be factual. Also, Newsweek, when attributed, certainly can be "used like this", but Schiff and the ODNI report are even better sources for that content as they document that Steele was way ahead of the intelligence community on this point. I'll take a look at it with a critical eye to improving it, so all's good. -- Valjean (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I could not disagree more that Adam Schiff should be taken seriously on this topic. Devin Nunes was ranking member of that Committee and also a member of the Gang of Eight with a top clearance and I doubt you would take his word for something. But regardless, just look at the differences between the Schiff Memo and the Nunes Memo - the Horowitz Report debunked at least 5 points in Schiff's memo while supporting some key assertions made by Nunes. Attributing text to Newsweek would be UNDUE, and additionally there's no consensus as to the reliability of that source post 2013. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Attribution does not make content UNDUE. Quite the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So let's see, Adam Schiff, firmly on the side against Russian interference, for a thorough investigation so we'd know what really happened, voted for Trump's impeachment after his quid pro quo threats to the president of Ukraine, and then there's Devin Nunes, carrying water for Trump by illegally leaking info and backchanneling (he was caught) classified info to Trump about an investigation of him, and backing up Trump's denials of Russian interference, tried to help Trump sabotage the investigation so we really can't know what happened, voted against Trump's impeachment, sued a fake cow....hmmm. Who's really credible? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. -- Valjean (talk)
 * I believe Mr Ernie was right to revert because the wikivoice statement that something was "confirmed by Adam Schiff" made it appear that Mr Schiff can make confirmations not just claims. But should Valjean's earlier addition of Mr Schiff's opinion, in a different section, also be reverted? It's done in a way that doesn't violate WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV but if the section only quotes one politician then is it npov? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the earlier addition of Schiff's opinion should also be removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "yes" is not a rationale. Please respond to Valjean's objection to your revert. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was objecting to the reason for the deletion. -- Valjean (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, I meant to say that whereas you provided a reasoned objection, Ernie, the reverter, simply repeated what we already knew -- that he thought it should be removed. I was expecting a reasoned explanation for the revert, not just an OR disparagement of Schiff. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ya'll chose as you like. IMHO, Schiff is anything but reliable, when it comes to Russia. How do you keep your defence contractors happy? promote a cold war. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, does "Ya'll chose as you like" mean you are neutral about reverting Valjean's Adam Schiff editing? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie's deletion should stand, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, are you thus lending your approval to revisionist/suppressionist practices that violate NPOV through politically-targetted removals of the opinions of one POV to leave only the other POV? That means editors are taking sides, rather than following NPOV. Schiff, like him or not, is a very notable person with insider knowledge, thus making his opinions quite due. -- Valjean (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Durham/CNN's Cohen on Ivanov and Kalugin allegations
According to the Steele dossier, specifically Report 2016/111, dated "14 September 2016" (pp. 22-24): PUTIN had been receiving conflicting advice on interfering from three separate and expert groups. On one side had been the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergei KISLYAK, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, together with an independent and informal network run by presidential foreign policy advisor, Yuri USHAKOV who had urged caution and the potential negative impact on Russia from the operation/s. On the other side was former PA head, Sergei IVANOV, backed by Russian Foreign Intelligence (SVR), who had advised PUTIN that the pro-TRUMP, anti-CLINTON operation/s would be both effective and plausibly deniable with little blowback. The first group/s had been proven right and this had been the catalyst in PUTIN's decision to sack IVANOV (unexpectedly) as PA Head in August. His successor, Anton VAINO, had been selected for the job partly because he had not been involved in the US presidential election operation/s. ...

Finally, speaking separately to the same compatriot, a senior Russian MFA official reported that as a prophylactic measure, a leading Russia diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN, had been withdrawn from Washington on short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation, including the so-called veterans' pensions ruse (reported previously), would be exposed in the media there. His replacement, Andrei BONDAREV however was clean in this regard.

While our article currently states that the allegation against Kalugin has been confirmed, citing a March 2017 BBC report by Paul Woods (who appears to be very close to Steele), and does not mention anything about Sergei Ivanov, Durham's indictment against Danchenko and a recent CNN report have called the veracity of these allegations into question. CNN's Marshall Cohen briefly addresses this topic: Court filings from the Durham inquiry recently revealed that some information in the dossier originated from Charles Dolan, 71, a public relations executive with expertise in Russian affairs who had a decades-long political relationship with the Clinton family. He has not been accused of any crimes. ... Dolan was also indirectly linked in the indictment to still-unverified claims about Russian officials who were allegedly part of the election meddling. [emphasis added] The indictment also suggested that Steele's memos exaggerated what Dolan had passed along to Danchenko.

Durham's indictment of Danchenko (pp. 21-26) goes into considerably more detail regarding the provenance of Danchenko's sourcing for the above allegations against both Ivanov and Kulagin. (Dolan is referred to only as "PR Executive-I" and not named in the indictment, "but a lawyer for Dolan confirmed he was the unnamed executive cited in the document," according to WaPo.) Focusing specifically on Kulagin's recall to Russia and the suggestion that this was due to his "heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation," Durham writes: This allegation—like the allegation concerning the Presidential Suite of the Moscow Hotel—bore substantial similarities to information that [Dolan] received during the 2016 time period. ... After one of these meetings on or about May 31, 2016, a member of the Russian Embassy staff informed [Dolan] and Organizer-I in an email that [Kalugin] would be recalled back to Russia in September 2016 and replaced by Russian Diplomat-2. DANCHENKO was not a recipient of this email. ... On or about August 19, 2016, [Kalugin] sent an email to [Dolan] and others. The email stated, in substance and part, that [Kalugin] was returning to Russia and was being replaced by Russian Diplomat-2. [Kalugin] further stated: "[Russian Diplomat-2] is a talented diplomat and economist with impressive experience in American studies." [emphasis in original] ... On or about September 13, 2016—the day prior to the date of the Company Report containing the allegation regarding [Kalugin]—[Dolan] called DANCHENKO. ... In particular, on or about January 25, 2017, DANCHENKO stated to FBI agents that he learned of the information about [Kalugin]'s departure from [Kalugin] himself while [Kalugin] was helping DANCHENKO obtain a new Russian passport. DANCHENKO further stated that [Kalugin] described his replacement, Russian Diplomat-2, as a "bright young guy"—similar to the statement contained in the aforementioned August 2016 email from [Kalugin] to [Dolan]. [emphasis in original] DANCHENKO also stated to the FBI that his conversation with [Kalugin] occurred in late spring 2016—in or around the same time that [Dolan] and Organizer-I first learned of [Kalugin]'s impending return to Russia. ... However, when interviewed by the FBI on or about September 18 and 19, 2017, [Steele] stated that DANCHENKO learned of the aforementioned allegation in Moscow after bumping into [Kalugin] on the street in August 2016. In fact, DANCHENKO was located in the United States in August 2016. If Durham's allegations are proven, they imply that Danchenko may have misled Steele about "bumping into [Kalugin] on the street in August 2016" and that at least some of the information in the September 14 Steele memo was in fact unwittingly provided by Dolan. Furthermore, Kalugin's recall to Russia was planned months in advance (by "late spring 2016," with the planned departure being mentioned in a May 31 email to Dolan), which, far from confirming the accuracy of the Steele dossier, contradicts Steele's reporting that Kalugin "had been withdrawn from Washington on short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation ... would be exposed in the media there." [emphasis added]

While our article states that "McClatchy reported that the FBI was investigating whether Kalugin played a role in the election interference," this does not necessarily corroborate the Steele dossier, because the dossier may have been the basis for the FBI's investigation, and Kalugin was never charged or sanctioned in connection with Russian election meddling, to my knowledge. Furthermore, while it is only a passing mention, CNN's Cohen also indicates that the allegations against both Ivanov and Kulagin are "still-unverified". Food for thought...TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So it seems to be like I had already figured, that is IF (!) I parsed it right...so correct me if I'm wrong. I hope I can formulate this right at this late hour after one reading.
 * It seems that Dolan was the real source for real events, and we know Danchenko was one of Steele's paid "collectors" of info from sub-sources like Dolan.
 * We don't know exactly how many sub-sources Steele had (supposedly "20 to 30"), but we know that since 2017 he has established a new network of sources, though that's irrelevant to this issue.
 * Danchenko got the info from Dolan and then lied to Steele (and the FBI) by taking credit for that info, so the FBI have indicted him for "lying about the source of his info" (paraphrased). There is no insinuation that the info is false.
 * Dolan was well-connected, even within the top echelons of the Kremlin, and Danchenko used him as an unwitting source and protected his source from literal danger by simply "cutting him out" of the supply chain by lying about his involvement. That's normally accepted and good practice, except(!) when talking to the FBI. Danchenko found himself caught between a rock and a hard place and fucked up.
 * The info from Dolan is likely true because it explains known events from an insider's POV, and he was in a position to know what was happening behind the scenes. These people were his friends and/or acquaintances.
 * I have previously assumed some of this info from inside the Kremlin may have come from an American double agent who was exfiltrated with his family.. Instead it may have been Dolan, who innocently talked to much to Danchenko.
 * The lesson for Danchenko? Don't ever lie to the effing FBI! They will bust your ass, and rightly so. Too bad TFG isn't around to pardon him like he did for his comrades who lied for him to cover up real crimes that endangered our national security. They also lied to the FBI, but I doubt Biden will pardon Danchenko.
 * This seems to have little effect on the veracity of that info in the dossier.
 * Did I miss anything? I probably did and you'll hopefully point it out. Good night. -- Valjean (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry Valjean, but the WP:OR above doesn't square with recent reporting, and certainly not with the allegations as laid out by Durham. It now seems that the sourcing for the dossier was flimsier than even many skeptics imagined in 2017, and that some allegations, such as the pee tape, appear to have been fabricated out of whole cloth by Danchenko (unbeknownst to Steele). Returning to Durham's indictment, specifically pp. 19-21, detailing "DANCHENKO's Allegations Regarding Trump's Salacious Sexual Activity":


 * For example, an allegation in a Company Report dated June 20, 2016 indicated that Trump had previously engaged in salacious sexual activity while a guest at the Moscow Hotel. The allegation stated, in part:


 * ... The [Moscow Hotel] episode involving TRUMP reported above was confirmed by Source E, a senior (western) member of staff at the hotel, who said that s/he and several of the staff were aware of it at the time and subsequently. S/he believed it had happened in 2013. Source E provided an introduction for a company ethnic Russian operative to Source F, a female staffer at the hotel when TRUMP had stayed there, who also confirmed the story. ... [emphasis in original]


 * Certain of the information in the June 20, 2016 Company Report reflected facts that [Dolan] and Organizer-I also learned during the June 2016 Planning Trip to Moscow. ... While at the Moscow Hotel, [Dolan] and Organizer-I (i) received a tour of the Moscow Hotel's Presidential Suite (ii) met with the general manager ("General Manager-I") and other staff of the Moscow Hotel, ... According to Organizer-I, during the aforementioned tour of the Presidential Suite, a Moscow Hotel staff member told the participants, including [Dolan], that Trump had stayed in the Presidential Suite. According to both Organizer-I and [Dolan], the staff member did not mention any sexual or salacious activity. ... DANCHENKO initially claimed to have stayed at the Moscow Hotel in June 2016. DANCHENKO later acknowledged in a subsequent interview, however, that he did not stay at the Moscow Hotel until the October Conference.
 * Clearly, if sources E and F exist, Steele did not speak with them, and Danchenko did not speak with them either. If they are the Russians that Dolan interacted with (i.e., the manager and a staff member of the hotel), then what are we to make of Dolan (and his associate)'s sworn statement that they "did not mention any sexual or salacious activity"? Marshall Cohen of CNN similarly observes:


 * The indictment indirectly connected Dolan to the infamous claim that Russia possessed a compromising tape of Trump with prostitutes in Moscow, which became known as the "pee tape." (Trump and Russia both denied the allegations.) According to the Danchenko indictment, in June 2016, Dolan toured the Ritz-Carlton suite where the alleged liaison occurred, and discussed Trump's 2013 visit with hotel staff, but wasn't told about any sexual escapades. It's still unclear where those salacious details that ended up in the dossier came from. .. Taken together, these revelations about Dolan, Millian and Galkina raise grave questions about where Danchenko got his information, or if he perhaps made some of it up.


 * BTW, Cohen also implicitly criticizes some of CNN's past reporting:


 * In April 2017, CNN was first to report that the FBI included some material from the dossier in the FISA applications. The article said prosecutors would only have done this "after the FBI had corroborated the information through its own investigation," according to officials familiar with the process. It's now clear that this level of verification never materialized. The watchdog report said Steele's claims about Page "remained uncorroborated" when the wiretaps ended in 2017. [emphasis added]


 * To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we put any of this in the article. I suspect that you are probably too emotionally invested in the dossier being true to countenance wholesale changes; after all, you've described the Durham inquiry (in article space!) as "an inquiry described as a cover-up to protect Trump," text that is still in this article and that I have not even tried to remove. But if Danchenko's case goes to trial next year, as planned, I would expect more damaging information about the provenance of Steele's memos to come out, and eventually... belatedly... at least some of it will be incorporated into this article. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * TheTimesAreAChanging, let's start at the end to clear up a big misunderstanding about my beliefs: "invested in the dossier being true". I have always known that there were parts of the dossier that might not be true, and Steele has always said that (70-90% accurate, with only 50% chance for the pee tape). That most of the allegations are unproven and likely unprovable is also no surprise. That says zilch about their truth or falsity.
 * "Clearly, if sources E and F exist, Steele did not speak with them, and Danchenko did not speak with them either. If they are the Russians that Dolan interacted with (i.e., the manager and a staff member of the hotel), then what are we to make of Dolan (and his associate)'s sworn statement that they "did not mention any sexual or salacious activity"?"
 * That's a big "if". The rest is OR. Other options exist (also OR ). We already knew that Steele did not speak with them. He is persona non grata in Russia. Danchenko could have spoken with them on his trips to Moscow, or he could have gotten it from Dolan. We do not know if Dolan spoke to the same sources on his 2016 visit to the hotel.
 * Also, the IG report describes how the Supervisory Intel Analyst said that "it was his impression that the Primary Sub-source may not have been 'completely truthful' and may have been minimizing certain aspects of what he/she told Steele". The sources for the pee tape allegation likely did the same, IF Dolan even talked to them. We don't know.
 * We have a whole section about Discrepancies between sources and their allegations because the IG Report deals with it. There may have been minimizing and exaggerating on both sides. Again, we only have what RS have said about this, and we have included it.
 * We do know that Steele had other sources for the pee tape allegation than those connected to Danchenko, including foreign intelligence agencies that confirmed there were several tapes of Trump's allegedly salacious sexual activities in Moscow and St. Petersburg: On January 11, 2017, Paul Wood, of BBC News, wrote that the salacious information in Steele's dossier was also reported by "multiple intelligence sources" and "at least one East European intelligence service". They reported that "compromising material on Mr. Trump" included "more than one tape, not just video, but audio as well, on more than one date, in more than one place, in both Moscow and St. Petersburg." While also mentioning that "nobody should believe something just because an intelligence agent says it", Wood added that "the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat—or compromising material—on the next US commander in chief".
 * "in June 2016, Dolan toured the Ritz-Carlton suite where the alleged liaison occurred, and discussed Trump's 2013 visit with hotel staff, but wasn't told about any sexual escapades."
 * In June 2016, Dolan didn't know what the dossier said, so he wouldn't have been asking about sexual kompromat at the hotel. Note that the dossier never claims Trump engaged in sexual activities at the hotel.
 * "a Moscow Hotel staff member told the participants, including [Dolan], that Trump had stayed in the Presidential Suite. According to both Organizer-I and [Dolan], the staff member did not mention any sexual or salacious activity."
 * It sounds like the staff member spontaneously mentioned/bragged "that Trump had stayed in the Presidential Suite". We have no evidence that the staff member was present in 2013 or knew anything about the "rumors" about Trump's allegedly "salacious" activities at the hotel. While many in Moscow, especially among sex workers, made the supposed incident the subject of jokes (the "rumors"), I really doubt the staff member would risk, if they even knew about the "rumors", getting fired by the hotel or killed by the FSB. It would be very unprofessional of them to mention such a thing, so their LACK of mention means nothing. Keep in mind that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Far too many right-wing sources and editors make this mistake and assume that because there has not been found evidence for an allegation, that it must therefore be false. That's a common logical fallacy. We still have to classify, as does the FBI, that well-known "rumor" as "unconfirmed".
 * Cohen says: "Taken together, these revelations about Dolan, Millian and Galkina raise grave questions about where Danchenko got his information, or if he perhaps made some of it up."
 * "It's now clear that this level of verification never materialized. The watchdog report said Steele's claims about Page "remained uncorroborated" when the wiretaps ended in 2017. [emphasis added]"
 * Yes, those are legitimate concerns, and the FBI is correct to consider "Steele's claims about Page "remained uncorroborated", and we should do the same. That doesn't mean they were false, just uncorroborated. We still don't know, and we therefore describe the situation in this article. That's what we are supposed to do.
 * You object to some content by accusing me:
 * "you've described the Durham inquiry (in article space!) as "an inquiry described as a cover-up to protect Trump," text that is still in this article and that I have not even tried to remove."
 * It's fortunate you haven't done so, because that is reliably sourced content, not something I would have ever come up with. The attribution is vague, so I'll add that as an improvement. It is okay to make such claims "in article space" when they are reliably sourced. No BLP violation. BTW, if you see anything like that which you think is dubious, feel free to mention it on my talk page. I'll thank you for it.
 * Again, I want to repeat my appreciation for your civil and collegial spirit. We're all learning things here, and that's part of what talk pages are for. -- Valjean (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I was going to leave that content alone, but after checking the citations, neither GQ nor Vice seem to support it, so I have removed the sentence on the grounds that it fails verification.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing. Somehow there was confusion about Barr and Durham. It was about Barr whose appointment of Durham was motivated by belief in the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, a "Russiagate" conspiracy theory. Trump was impeached for that one. -- Valjean (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, and that last bit about the Durham inquiry is sourced to GQ and Vice? It needs to be removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have had the problem where to start on the edits with the current set of editors who have to much invested in their POV and the NY Times creditability at some point in the past rather than the evidence the documents is a collection of unproven press reports and campaign time hearsay and that there was some sort of LEAN IN effort in the staff writers room of the NY Times.     CNN to this day still parrots that a meeting about the status of future sanctions under an future administration was anything other than purported by everyone in the room, not the meeting advertised before hand or reported by press afterwards.  Loopbackdude (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , even worse, neither of Valjean's sources mentions Durham or suggests that Durham's investigation is based on a "conspiracy theory," so the content is a straightforward violation of WP:V.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I'm not sure how that happened. A quick study of the sources reveals it's directed at Barr, not Durham. I'll study this. -- Valjean (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, the sources were not asserting that Durham is consciously performing a cover-up, but that Barr's belief and pushing of the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, a "Russiagate" conspiracy theory, motivated his appointment of Durham as Special Counsel. So the subject is Barr, not Durham, hence part of the confusion.
 * An investigation motivated by a conspiracy theory can rightly raise suspicions that it is a cover-up, and that's what the sources say. Barr was indeed, nearly all the time, serving as Trump's protector, rather than doing his job working for the good of the nation. He had vowed to serve and protect the Constitution, not Trump, and he violated that oath. -- Valjean (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Republican's false beliefs about the dossier and Russia
The following media articles debunk the "Russiagate" conspiracy theory, which is debunked in this article: Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (a conspiracy theory). The right-wing media places a lot of undeserved focus on the dossier, and we deal with it in this article. The dossier was not the trigger for the start of the Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) into how Trump and his campaign aided the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The Mueller report also described their role in helping the Russians. Wikipedia has many articles that cover this topic from many angles. In spite of these facts, we still have people coming here who don't understand these facts and who still believe the right-wing conspiracy theories. Needless to say, editors who edit and comment on these topics have no excuse for ignorance and sympathy with these conspiracy theories. -- Valjean (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Introduction added later.

"Countering the ongoing Republican delusions"

 * "Countering the ongoing Republican delusion"

He's right. Editors here need to stop propagating these right-wing, revisionist, hoaxes and conspiracy theories about the dossier and the very real and proven Russian interference that was aided and abetted by Trump and his campaign. Yes, there are things coming out now about sources for the dossier, but that doesn't somehow prove that all the conspiracy theories about the dossier and its allegations are all suddenly correct. They aren't.

As reliable sources document SPECIFIC matters that require changes to the article, we will revise THOSE things. We do not completely rewrite an article without support from RS, especially their opinion articles. That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, largely based on those opinion articles and views from unreliable sources. Any such attempts would be huge NPOV and TE violations that would end up at ArbCom and/or AE, with several editors here losing their privileges. Keep in mind that diffs from edits to articles and talk page discussions then become evidence. Unlike the destruction of evidence by TFG and his campaigners, those diffs live on, so beware. Just sayin'... The important point is that there is no rush. We'll get to it. -- Valjean (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only are you sweeping every allegation of collusion under the skirts of this article, you're also framing any criticism of the dossier as partisan bias when it's clear that journalists in command of the details are effectively poking holes in its credibility. I have no doubt the article in its final form will be a litany of media abuses, but it's going to take a long time to get there with your kind of rearguard tactics. Shtove (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "sweeping every allegation of collusion under the skirts of this article. What "allegations" are you talking about? "Collusion" by whom? {{tq|"under the skirts? What does that mean?
 * I can assure you it's not all because of right-wing partisan bias, but even you can't deny that much of it is, as it is seen as a confirmation of right-wing biases and POV held since the beginnings of Trump's reign, and they are welcoming it by assuming that even minor flaws uncovered automatically prove the dossier is ALL wrong. Those assumptions are uninformed partisan bias as they are not backed up by RS. Instead, these biases are fueled by conspiracy theories pushed by Trump and the right-wing echo chamber, for example the (1) "Russigate" conspiracy theory, (2) Deep state in the United States, (3) Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, (4)Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, (5) Allegations of Obama spying on Trump, (6) Spygate (conspiracy theory), (7) Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, (8) Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, and (9) Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal. See also List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump and Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. That is the kind of disinformation believed by the right-wing, and it colors their views of the dossier. That's undeniable. We could easily write about all the Conspiracy theories about the Steele dossier, all based on RS.
 * Also, you're right that there are "holes being poked" by mainstream RS in ways that are not just opinion articles, but articles that provide substantive and serious evidence of the dossier's weaknesses. Mainstream and left-wing sources have, very early on, exposed weaknesses and reasons for caution, so that is well-documented in this article. The Mueller Report didn't depend on it and barely mentioned it. The IG report exposed more reasons for caution, and so did Durham. I recognize that, and we have documented that in this article.
 * The questions now being asked are what do these things mean? Do they impact only certain minor details, or do they go much deeper about THOSE details, or do some of them affect MANY details? (For example, Danchenko is indicted on five counts of lying about sources, but nothing about any supposed fabricating the actual allegations, as has always been asserted, without evidence, by right-wing partisan sources. Nor do the indictments make any assertions that the actual allegations are false. No, it is only the lying about sources that is the problem.)
 * What is not true, is the partisan assumption, without evidence, that these problems affect the credibility of the whole dossier or all of its allegations, as there is no evidence that the dossier is a fabrication or fake document. We even see it on this page with calls for completely rewriting the article from the bottom up. That's totally against many PAG.
 * Steele received reports from his network of sources and wrote it up in memos with the intention of then vetting that info. They were unfinished, raw intelligence memos, and Glenn Kessler described it this way: "Raw intelligence is essentially high-grade gossip, without the expectation it would be made public unless it is further verified." The FBI and police, commenting on this fact about the dossier, have said they often start investigations with less information than provided by the dossier. At the time it was publicized by Buzzfeed it was essentially an unfinished rough draft, and it was never intended for public consumption, yet it has been unfairly judged as if it was a definitive product. No wonder Steele was pissed off. -- Valjean (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In direct contradiction to Mother Jones' opinion (ref 282), Marshall Cohen of CNN has just published an investigative report stating that President Trump was correct and his critics wrong: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html One can hardly call this source right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueFoam212 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BlueFoam212, that's an oversimplification. The CNN and Mother Jones sources are mostly in detailed agreement on the factual record, although the interpretation of said facts may vary a bit. I certainly don't see any statement in one source that directly contradicts a statement in the other source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

{{sources-talk}}

"Forget the Steele dossier: Mueller report release shows why Trump-Russia inquiry was required"

 * "Forget the Steele dossier: Mueller report release shows why Trump-Russia inquiry was required"

That sums up what's happening quite well, but there is one part that needs clarification. Only the mainstream RS did not report "that it was the only reason for the Russia investigation." It was the right-wing and conspiracy theory media that did that all along. They made that idea part of their conspiracy theories, and it's a false idea that is still pushed by TFG, and many of his followers still believe that lie. -- Valjean (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * “Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.” Salon is one of the worst sources on this topic. That blurb is the biased opinion of a Salon writer. Not worth much. “Made it clear that it was unsubstantiated” is not consistent with the actual sources, which are linked in the article and anyone can read. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, your comment is an ad hominem straw man response to the source. You are not debunking the content of the quote. Also, I have not suggested we use that source, and certainly not without attribution, but the blurb I quoted is backed up by RS and all the articles we have here which are based on them. Voicing fringe opinions (IOW not based on RS) that are counter to that factual blurb is a dubious endeavor.
 * It would be a more worthwhile use of time to study these articles and their sources about the conspiracy theories pushed by Trump and the right-wing echo chamber:
 * "Russigate" conspiracy theory (It is not an article yet, but it's composed of many of the following theories.)
 * Deep state in the United States
 * Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (a conspiracy theory)
 * Allegations of Obama spying on Trump
 * Spygate (conspiracy theory)
 * Trump Tower wiretapping allegations
 * Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
 * Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal
 * List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump
 * Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump
 * Timelines related to Donald Trump and Russian interference in United States elections
 * That is the kind of disinformation believed by the right-wing, and it colors their views of the dossier.
 * BTW, what does "Made it clear that it was unsubstantiated" refer to? -- Valjean (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to engage here in this section. I can't follow it after you changed the format and it's really into NOTFORUM territory anyways. But you posted an article that said "virtually every news outlet that reported it made clear that it was unsubstantiated," which is easily debunked as what can only be called revisionist. You are pushing fringe theories, when compared to the recent flood of RS. The articles you list, and their relevant sources, are chock full of so much misinformation that I don't even know where to start. The "collusion" stuff has always been a hoax grounded firmly in the Steele Dossier. Here's a good story about how reliable sources got played from The Nation. If you think this only happened with the examples in the story you are probably mistaken. The only reason we know about that is because of Durham's ongoing investigation, which editors active here have openly denigrated. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Trump server/Alfa Bank story is interesting, although it has nothing to do with the dossier. Fairly quickly, the FBI declared they could find no evidence of wrongdoing, but they have since declared that it was still strange and unexplained behavior. That is still an open matter.
 * The "collusion" matter is not a hoax. While "conspiracy" is mentioned in the dossier, the word "collusion" is never found there, but behaviors that fit "collusion" are certainly described in the dossier and elsewhere. Collusion and conspiracy suspicions were also raised by the findings of many other investigations, independently of the dossier, and those suspicions still exist. Remove the dossier from the equation and Trump would still have been the subject of investigations. The only difference would be the FISA warrants on Carter Page, and even then, since the FBI was already at the 50% "probable cause to investigate him" point before they learned of the dossier, almost anything else would likely have pushed them over the edge and started a renewed FISA investigation.
 * The dossier alleges a "conspiracy of cooperation". Whether or not there was collusion is all a difference of opinion about how to explain all the proven illicit and secretive connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials and intelligence agents, as well as Trump's subservience to Putin and his active "cooperation" with and aiding of the Russians in their proven interference.
 * Mainstream sources consider all that to be evidence of collusion (often using other words). As for "conspiracy", Mueller was not able to find evidence of a written or verbal "conspiracy" (which probably doesn't exist), which is both more than mere "collusion" (the proven "cooperation"), yet less serious than the actual "collusion" commission of misdeeds and crimes related to the proven "cooperation" with Russian interference. The actual deeds are much more serious than any supposed formal agreement to commit the deeds.
 * By contrast, right-wing media sources push the "it's all a hoax" claims as part of their denial and cover-up of the Trumpian Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (a conspiracy theory). That is the point of the article above.
 * Otherwise, I have left a message on your talk page that is not suitable for this talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You cite the same self-serving sources that created the propaganda in the first place and are now trying to cover their asses. And for some reason you're seeking to excuse the subject of this article by praying in aid supposed confirmation of wider or alternative allegations of collusion. It is necessary to remove all sources for which corrective measures are, or should be, pending, and to revisit them once those measures have been taken. Shtove (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"Discredited Steele Dossier Doesn't Undercut Russia Inquiry"

 * "Discredited Steele Dossier Doesn't Undercut Russia Inquiry"

The problem with that statement is the employment of Bruce Ohr, Husband of Fusion GPS employee

The previously unreported details of the July 30, 2016, breakfast with Christopher Steele, which Ohr described to lawmakers this week in a private interview, reveal an exchange of potentially explosive information about Trump between two men the president has relentlessly sought to discredit.

On September 30, 2020, Ohr retired from his position at DOJ "after his counsel was informed that a final decision on a disciplinary review being conducted by Department senior career officials was imminent"

Ohr failed to inform his supervisors in the Justice Department of his role, actions which were "shocking" to Rod Rosenstein when he learned of Ohr's role. Rosenstein stated that Ohr "appeared to be serving as an 'intermediary' with Steele".

The editors do not want to pay attention to this very early reporting, that is one major factor why half the nation does not belive that the russia investigation is more than an series of diverse facts pulled together, fusion GPS pulled diverse facts together and they were fed to the DOJ and then to the FBI. The DC telephone game and distortion of reporting is still all over this item.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430717-the-family-secret-bruce-ohr-told-rod-rosenstein-about-russia-case

Loopbackdude (talk) 13:46, December 3, 2021‎ (TC)

Campaign Law Suspect, No FEC finding
"Philip Bump has explained 'why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law—and the Steele dossier likely didn't': 'Hiring a foreign party to conduct research is very different, including in legal terms, than being given information by foreign actors seeking to influence the election. What's more, Trump's campaign did accept foreign assistance in 2016, as the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III determined.'"

The Trump Tower meeting involved a voluntary offer of aid ("a campaign contribution") to the Trump campaign from the Russian government, and the offer was thus illegal to accept in any manner. Already before the meeting the Trump campaign knew the source and purpose of the offer of aid, still welcomed the offer, successfully hid it for a year, and when the meeting was finally exposed, Trump issued a deceptive press release about it. The sourcing on both have proven to be opinion, like much of the NY Times reporting, will be edited in the future. The preponderance of the evidence, as in the testamony under oath, is the trump tower meeting was a bust about economic sanctions that were ratched up for the 4 years of the Trump Term. If a russian national had given the trump camping something that is a hypothetical. We have on the foreign agents and the clinton campaign insiders giving the clinton campaign through fusion GPS untruths that have proven to be of no value other than feeding the rumor mill and the DOJ/FBI kabal that wanted to prove their loyalty to the bureaucracy under attack by new leadership.

An article on political hearsay that has been taken criminal, this is very large editorial challenge but the POV of collection of unsubstantiated facts cannot pick and choose a few facts that were in the public record outside the document and lend any creditability. Russia Hoax is an ill defined term, define that term sharply and it is true, define it in a way to generate copy and it is a conspircy theory.

The community will be editing this for decades. The whole affair is a watergate without the burgulars, security guard, or arrests, or tapes. Or a Saturday Night Massacre. It had impechment, twice. Best dirty tricks project ever! It had Russians, DOJ Lawyers and FBI Ledership, very little shoe leather was worn by the guys in cheap suits.

Loopbackdude (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Citing a CNN article by Jim Sciutto and Evan Perez
I made these remarks before in Role of the media / media criticism, that was a mistake because they were only tangentially related to the thread topic. I repeat them here and expect that counter-arguments will be repeated here or moved here. CNN, in The Steele dossier: A reckoning, refers to a February 2017 article which says that "US investigators had corroborated some of the communications detailed in the dossier". We're using that February 2017 article for a cite of the words "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated"[CNN cite][ABC cite]". But CNN acknowledges that Michael Horowitz's report said only limited information was corroborated from the dossier relating to "time, location, and title information, much of which was publicly available." And this is the February 2017 article which Erik Wemple of the Washington Post deprecated in 2020 and in 2021. So we have a wiki-voice claim in the lead that's backed by a cite to a source that's contested. As for the second cite, to ABC, I see nothing there that supports the claim but maybe I'm missing something so the person who originally cited it (Valjean) might point to the exact place. I suggest that the appropriate solution is: remove the CNN cite, but leave the claim for now because the rest of the sentence would be affected if we removed it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Mayer on Carter Page's alleged "admission"
On a separate but related matter, do you think that you are at the point where you would be willing to consider tweaking the line from Mayer about Page supposedly admitting that he was offered "a payoff" during his November 2017 congressional testimony to reflect the points raised by Peter Gulutzan and myself above, or is that a bridge too far for you at this time? Keep in mind that I am not suggesting we should take Page's testimony at face value—I am merely suggesting that we should not misquote him when we have the transcript available and it does not include the "offered him" language introduced by Mayer. Furthermore, CNN had an entire article devoted to Page's testimony within a week of his appearance, which is much more accurate than Mayer's passing account and makes clear that while Page admitted meeting with the head of Rosneft's investor relations, he was adamant that no quid pro quo (as alleged in the dossier) was discussed. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We're talking about these two sentences:
 * Jane Mayer said this part of the dossier seems true, even if the name of an official may have been wrong. Page's congressional testimony confirmed he held secret meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials, including talks about a payoff : "When Page was asked if a Rosneft executive had offered him a 'potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft', Page said, 'He may have briefly mentioned it.'"
 * You also mention a CNN article we could use instead (or along with).
 * I am always "willing to consider tweaking" content that needs improvement. I definitely do not own this article, but just happen to know what's in it better than most. I react very well to constructive suggestions, but not to griping that isn't based on specific PAG and good sourcing. You are very civil and constructive, and that is very much appreciated. I'd love to collaborate with you to "get it right". Feel free to suggest better wording and secondary reliable sources. BTW, when something is mentioned in a reliable primary source, if it is also mentioned in a secondary reliable source, I think it's okay to place both in the article as sources as long as it isn't controversial. We can use primary sources for uncontroversial matters like birth dates, exact quotes, confirmation of secondary sources, etc. It's also a good service to readers.
 * We don't use this Mayer source or wording in the Carter Page article, but it does have BLP implications (even if from a RS) for both articles, so I have removed the offending part from this article (and stricken through above) and we can discuss its fate here. Is that fair enough? -- Valjean (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the "payoff" language, which partially addresses my concern. As I'm sure you can imagine, my preference would be to either drop Mayer completely, or trim the relevant text down to just the bit about her opinion/analysis (i.e., "Jane Mayer said this part of the dossier seems true, even if the name of an official may have been wrong."), which would not be as drastic as it sounds considering that the factual portion of her reporting is duplicated by the paragraphs directly preceding and succeeding it. A more modest change might look like the following:
 * "Jane Mayer said this part of the dossier seems true, even if the name of an official may have been wrong. Page's congressional testimony confirmed he held secret meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials, during which Page conceded under questioning that the 'potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft' might have been 'briefly mentioned'. However, Page insisted that 'there was never any negotiations, or any quid pro quo, or any offer, or any request even, in any way related to sanctions.'"
 * Would it be acceptable for me to make that edit? Another possibility: We could also consider tweaking the above to "during which Page conceded in response to a question by Adam Schiff [...]" and include a footnote with a link to the transcript so that readers can examine the relevant exchange for themselves, if they wish.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging, I was too late to respond here, so I have commented below in my response to Peter. I think we're dealing with a full-blown NPOV violation. Your suggestion above avoids doing that. -- Valjean (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dropping Mayer completely would be good. Even in the more modest change, "held secret meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials" is an odd way to say "watched soccer with a Rosneft acquaintance". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, Mayer should be dropped completely, given recent developments. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree also. Take it out. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing four people sympathetic to removal with explanations, I removed. This is a revert of material inserted by Valjean and modified later. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter, I don't see any good justification for removing that modified content while we are still discussing. It does not contain any BLP violations and is properly attributed to Mayer, a subject matter expert. I hadn't gotten around to agreeing with the tweak suggested at 23:35 by TheTimesAreAChanging. It's a good compromise. Page did lie about these secret meetings, and only under oath did he give evasive and possibly disingenuous "explanations" to get himself off the hook. Keep in mind the section where that content is used is about various sources statements relative to the "Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations". Wikipedia does not take sides, so the content covers often conflicting reports for or against their veracity. Mayer's contribution is a significant one that should not be completely excised in attempts to leave only one POV. I think we're now dealing with a full-blown NPOV violation. TheTimesAreAChanging's suggestion above avoids doing that. -- Valjean (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter, to show your good faith, would you please self-revert while we're discussing this? -- Valjean (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The justification is that 4 people have opposed it, for good reasons. You can't hold this article hostage to your viewpoint. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC) >
 * I don't want to get involved in an edit war. As mentioned previously, I am sympathetic to removal, but if the content is returned then I will make the change to it that I suggested above. (Note that the relevant section already uses "situationally reliable" per WP:RSP Newsweek to make essentially the same point as Mayer, namely that the dossier's claims were "verified" because Page met with Baranov, even though the dossier said that Page met with Putin's right-hand man Igor Sechin and was involved in a lucrative quid pro quo conservatively amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for sanctions relief, none of which in fact has been publicly substantiated.) In any case, if the disputed text from Mayer is restored, then I would also favor trimming Mayer's language about "secret meetings" in favor of just "meetings," as the former formulation comes across as sensationalized well-poisoning. To my knowledge, no reliable source has challenged that Page met with Baranov (an old friend of his) and the other Russians in public settings, and his presence in Russia (fully explained or not) was hardly a closely-guarded secret. To the contrary, Page attracted immense scrutiny by giving a public speech at Moscow's prestigious New Economic School, "an honor usually reserved for well-known luminaries," including President Obama in 2009, according to the Schiff memo (p. 4) and AP. (AP further notes: "Last year, the university invited Carter Page, a little-known former investment banker and foreign policy adviser to then-U.S. presidential hopeful Donald Trump. It wouldn’t be the last time Page would draw unexpected—and some say outsized—attention for his relationship to Trump, his entanglements in Russia and the murky nexus between the two. ... For those who contend the scrutiny of Trump is overblown, Page is the sort of figure often associated with an understaffed presidential campaign that struggled to recruit policy advisers and spent little time vetting those who did join the team. ... ")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm not the type of editor that normally edit wars. I'd rather see the change that you suggested above so we can see how it works.
 * I'm just asking Peter to follow collegial protocol to leave the status quo version in place as long as the discussion is not finished. Appealing to consensus is not a legitimate argument in this case, as there is no clear BLP violation (this is not unsourced negative content), and, unfortunately, consensus is frequently used to violate NPOV and other policies. That's what I see happening here. Brute force isn't a good way to alter content. I'm asking for a demonstration of goodwill. As I have already shown you, I'm pretty easy to deal with, and I have often changed or agreed to changes that were reasonably justified by good arguments. We're almost there, but not yet. Complete deletion of opposing views from mainstream RSes in a manner that produces a one-sided presentation is clearly an NPOV violation. -- Valjean (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you haven't already, read Status quo stonewalling Inf-in MD (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of it. (I have been here since 2003 and helped write some of our most important policies. I'm no newbie.) Stonewalling is not what's happening here. We just need to work out some bugs. Note that I had already deleted the offending part in response to discussions here, so I am hardly stonewalling. There is no rush, so be careful when throwing around such accusations. They assume bad faith. Be patient and WP:FOC. You have already been warned. Brute force editing does not substitute for proper vetting and discussion. -- Valjean (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited the article at all, I am just telling you how you actions look: 4 editors have objected to the content (and one of them removed it, based on the obvious consensus to do so), you are the only one who insists in returning it to he article with arguments like "I'm just asking Peter to follow collegial protocol to leave the status quo version in place" - which is exactly what Status quo stonewalling describes. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Context matters. -- Valjean (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * New to this discussion, but the discussion has been civil, and definitely not stonewalling of any type. The proposed "more modest section" appears favorable along the lines as suggested by TheTimesAreAChanging. That state is good, while any adjustments suggested by Valjean would also be interesting to see. Both of you have good reasoning as to how it can be balanced. I think both the CNN and the New Yorker article should be cited there, and the section not removed as it provides additional context to that header. Rauisuchian (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Valjean: I believe you can assume good faith and seek consensus for what you want to re-insert. I do not agree that there is no BLP issue here, as the material is indeed a cause of contention now and I thought there was basis for my calling it "poorly sourced" because the statements did not match what we could see from other sources including Carter Page's testimony. (I acknowledge that you have called him a liar, I do not take it as a fact.) I see that TheTimesAreAChanging, despite being one of the four editors sympathetic to removal, is allowing for re-insertion with more moderate words. But I don't interpret that as TheTimesAreAChanging's preference, and I objected about "an odd way to say", and others should also have to agree explicitly on the exact wording that they think should be here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Rauisuchian, thank you for your wise words. Peter Gulutzan, I appreciate your collaborative tone. Compromise is how collaborative editing works best.
 * I favor the version above proposed by TheTimesAreAChanging. Can we agree on that, rather than complete deletion? Let him or someone else put that version in place, and let's see how it looks. Jane Mayer is far too qualified and notable a voice to suffer complete deletion. The use of the CNN article is new in this context and gives Page and his detailed denial a prominent voice. -- Valjean (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For now, I have reinstated the text with Page's denial of a quid pro quo as a compromise with Valjean and Rauisuchian. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks good, especially the addition of actual testimony. Good work. BTW, I think you'll find this article interesting, with plenty of testimony by Page while being interviewed by Democrats and Republicans. It discusses how "Page’s testimony is a farrago of legal claims, bluster, contradictions, and concessions. It’s hard to imagine that Page’s testimony, and his Fifth Amendment blunder, helped him." One cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment for non-criminal matters, IOW it's seen as a tacit admission of guilt for "something" kept secret by not telling the court. Page made distinctly contradictory and mutually exclusive statements, and that really caught the attention of the congressmen. It's amazing he didn't get indicted for perjury and/or contempt of Congress. Republican Trey Gowdy was just as baffled as Schiff. -- Valjean (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging, could you say what you mean by "For now" and what consensus you'd regard as "strong" enough? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter Gulutzan, if you, Mr Ernie, and Inf-in MD want to pursue removal in opposition to Valjean and Rauisuchian, that's fine, but I would prefer to avoid conflict in this topic area in favor of a measured compromise with editors whom I don't always agree with. I don't have anything else to say on the matter, other than that I appreciate your accurate analysis regarding the relevant portion of Page's HPSCI testimony, which influenced the modulated text currently used in the article. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter, I removed the objectionable part about any "admission", and then TheTimesAreAChanging refined the content even further, using information from CNN and Congressional testimony. Do you still have any policy-based objections now that your original objections have been resolved? -- Valjean (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Objections weren't resolved -- I said "Dropping Mayer completely would be good", Inf-In MD said "Mayer should be dropped completely", Mr Ernie said "Take it out",  but Mayer was re-inserted. For your minority opinion for keeping your bold insertion the onus should be on you to supply policy reasons, but since it's easy I'll provide a few that support our position: WP:V (Mr Page did not confirm during congressional testimony that he held meetings with "top Moscow and Rosneft officials"), WP:DUE (Ms Mayer's in the article a dozen times while others aren't in at all), WP:BLP (and by the way that applies as well to calling Mr Page a liar on a talk page), WP:NOCON (even if there were no consensus there would still be a requirement to go back to before the Mayer insertion). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The original appeal to consensus to force a complete deletion of this content was fallacious because an appeal to Consensus must be based on policies, not IDontLikeIt. You are still asserting consensus as the basis for completely deleting properly sourced and attributed content, but that's still the wrong approach. Now you are at least mentioning some policies, so good for you. Let's look at each of them:


 * You: "WP:V (Mr Page did not confirm during congressional testimony that he held meetings with "top Moscow and Rosneft officials")"
 * You have misread the content and are thus incorrectly summarizing what we have written:
 * You write: "Mr Page did not confirm during congressional testimony that he held meetings with "top Moscow and Rosneft officials".
 * Yes, "Page did not confirm..." but that's not what's in the article: "Page's congressional testimony confirmed he held meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials." That is absolutely proven fact. Page initially denied meeting ANY officials (a BIG lie), and under intense questioning it was confirmed that he met several very TOP Russian officials, and he had kept much of this secret and denied it (big lies he repeated). Under oath, he was grudgingly forced to admit he met with these people.


 * You: "WP:DUE (Ms Mayer's in the article a dozen times while others aren't in at all)"
 * 1) The number of times Mayer is used is irrelevant. She is a very highly awarded subject matter expert and has deeply researched and written about these matters, so it's natural we would cite her more than once. Here she is summarizing her research on this point, that "this part of the dossier seems true". Others view it differently (next point).
 * 2) You write: "while others aren't in at all". Keep in mind the section is about a proven fact "Page met with Rosneft officials". Do you have sources (the "others") that contradict this fact, like in literal, serious, debunking? If so, are they from RS? If they exist, please produce them so we can vet them for possible use. A denial would be counterfactual, so I suspect they are only the voices of unreliable sources. A real debunking is another matter that might well be usable.
 * You: "WP:BLP (and by the way that applies as well to calling Mr Page a liar on a talk page)"
 * He was very evasive, to the point of it not being a BLP violation to describe him as a liar. Just his improper use of the 5th amendment (an admission of guilt) proves that. He has repeatedly denied meeting any Russian officials on his two trips to Russia in 2016, but has been forced to admit meeting several top officials. That makes him a liar. "Carter Page told Judy Woodruff on the PBS NewsHour that he had “no meetings” with Russian officials last year." (2016) See also: There are plenty of other RS discussing Page's evasiveness and duplicity, so much so that U.S. Intelligence saw him as acting as a Russian asset (possibly actual agent) and surveilled him with that in mind.
 * You: "WP:NOCON (even if there were no consensus there would still be a requirement to go back to before the Mayer insertion)."
 * No, back to the long-standing status quo version with the full, unchanged, Mayer content, but we have sought to assuage your concerns so that now your only real fallback is "no consensus".

Do you really want to keep pursuing attempts to delete all opinions from one POV (especially such a high-profile one) so that only the opposing POV is left? That is what's happening here, and it's about as egregious a POV violation as can be imagined. You don't really want to invoke "consensus" for such a violation, do you? (That's a rhetorical question, so please don't provide written evidence that can later be used against you.)

TheTimesAreAChanging and I have really tried to improve the content by responding to the concerns expressed by your whole "consensus" group, and I think you realize that. This is a good compromise, so I encourage you to act collegially and not politically. Note the addition of Page's denial, which was not requested: "However, Page insisted that "there was never any negotiations, or any quid pro quo, or any offer, or any request even, in any way related to sanctions." Maybe you missed that. If the Mayer content goes, then so does Page's evasive denial, as it has no due weight in the absence of any accusation. In fact, now that Mayer's accusation has been removed, Page's denial has no due weight, but I'm willing to allow that violation of UNDUE as a compromise. We now have a good version that should meet your concerns. -- Valjean (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect that the deletion was based on IDontLikeIt as anyone can see by looking upward, it is incorrect that there's some significant difference between Page's testimony confirming and Page confirming during testimony, it is incorrect that "meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials" phrasing is proven fact (it's apparently from the Mayer article I don't see it in testimony or CNN), it is probably incorrect that Ms Mayer has deeply researched judging by the lack of backup for her accusations, it is in my view incorrect that you have some licence to call Mr Page a liar without reliable sourcing yourself, it is arguably incorrect that your version is the status quo ante, it is partly incorrect that Ms Mayer's accusation has been removed only part of it has been removed, it is probably incorrect that Mr Page's denial has no weight, and so on. But refuting you has no effect, and that is why one must sometimes find what level of support there is. On that note: Inf-in_MD, Mr Ernie: should we continue this, and if so how? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "should we continue this". I agree with your points above regarding the policy based reasons to remove this, and reaffirm my position that Mayer's paragraph needs to be removed, in toto. That would be just the first step, IMO, as this entire article needs a serious rewrite - all the stuff dated to 2016-2017 needs to be excised or severely pared down, given what we know today - that the dossier was a piece of oppo research paid for and sourced by Democratic party operatives, who lied about it repeatedly, and have since been arrested and charged. When the WaPo removes or adds editorial comments to a dozen or more of its articles saying they can no longer stand by them we need more than two sentences saying the WaPo did this. The article currently reads as if nothing has happened the last two years. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By "continue" I meant "pursue removal" (TheTimesAreAChanging's phrase). If nobody knows how, Mayer stays. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, yes, we should 'continue this'. If we can't get to an agreement there, we can start an RfC on the inclusion . Inf-in MD (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. If we can't get to agreement, in about three days, I'll make an RfC with the question: Remove the two sentences that begin with the words "Jane Mayer said this part of the dossier seems true ..."? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Inf-in MD, the question would be about "removal", not "inclusion". Removing long-standing, properly-attributed, and reliably-sourced content is nearly always difficult as doing such usually requires the violation of several PAG, and many editors would come here and give the proposer a boomerang trouting and warning. "Consensus" doesn't work against multiple PAG, at least not for long, as all those mainstream editors who understand policies would change the consensus.
 * The original objections have been met, the content improved, and even more content that is favorable to the objector's POV has been added, so they haven't a leg to stand on. Continued attempts are just I don't like it. -- Valjean (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what a PAG is, but I do know consensus can change, and there is no consensus for the text as it previously was in the article today. That is not surprising, as a lot has happened since 2017, and the statements you claim are reliably sourced have proven to be nothing of the kind - many of the sources used in the article have since then been retracted or amended by the original writers. I don't appreciate your veiled threats, but perhaps RfC is what is needed now.Inf-in MD (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:PAG. -- Valjean (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See RfC: two sentences based on an article by Jane Mayer. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Role of the media / media criticism
There have been a number of pieces lately from important outlets describing the overall role and approach by the media when the Dossier was first published. Does the article need a section summarizing this? Some of these seem to be opinion pieces, but much of recent analysis has tended to look critically at the initial coverage. CJR, WaPo, NYT, Intelligencer, for starters. What do editors think? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think recent developments are vastly underrepresented in the article, which reads as if nothing new has happened. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you propose some text for us to evaluate? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, I certainly think some of the opinions are notable enough for mention. A short section should be explored, so feel free to provide some suggested wordings and sources. It could be a sub-section in the Legacy section. We don't need general grumblings or random pot shots without specifics. That kind of stuff would be why we have WP:MANDY. Criticism is cheap and easy, whereas analysis is better. We need quality commentary that is specific. -- Valjean (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone thinks this whole thing couldn't get more complicated, read this. It's just too fuzzy to draw clear conclusions, and that provides the perfect opportunity to make insinuations, which some people off-wiki have done, and which we should avoid. soibangla (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be most informative if we can format the mentions from each source/author (with good attribution and specific allegation) in a format something like this: Something along those lines. Feel free to develop. -- Valjean (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "(Source) criticized the (the media, general or specific) for (their alleged offense)."


 * Here's another critical piece, this time from CNN. LINK. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I read that one as well, though it too seems inconclusive. It "raises questions." soibangla (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That CNN LINK refers to CNN's own February 2017 article which says that "US investigators had corroborated some of the communications detailed in the dossier". We're using that February 2017 article for a cite of the words "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated"[CNN cite][ABC cite]". But CNN acknowledges that Michael Horowitz's report said only limited information was corroborated from the dossier relating to "time, location, and title information, much of which was publicly available." And this is the February 2017 article which Erik Wemple of the Washington Post deprecated in 2020 and in 2021. So we have a wiki-voice claim in the lead that's backed by a cite to a source that's contested. As for the second cite, to ABC, I see nothing there that supports the claim but maybe I'm missing something so the person who originally cited it (Valjean) might point to the exact place. I suggest that the appropriate solution is: remove the CNN cite, but leave the claim for now because the rest of the sentence would be affected if we removed it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter, I'll start with the ABC source, as the CNN one will be more dicey and need more research, but I'll get to it. The flow of the sentence, especially after those two refs, indicates the topic in those sources. I have now added the last part of a quote to the ABC ref. Here's the whole quote from ABC, relevant part bolded: "While the 35 pages that comprise Steele's dossier are brimming with explosive and explicit claims based on unidentified sources, some of the dossier's broad implications — particularly that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an operation to boost Trump and sow discord within the U.S. and abroad — now ring true and were embedded in the memo Steele shared with the FBI before the agency decided to open an investigation."
 * Adam Schiff says that Steele was ahead of U.S. intelligence on that one, and he would know as he was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, member of the Gang of Eight, and has top security clearance. In fact, at the time, U.S. intelligence and the media only knew of cyber attacks. (Of course TFG was denying everything.) Steele already wrote about that in his first report from June, before the FBI started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in late July, and they didn't see Steele's report until two months later. By that time, they had, using their own sources of info, come to the same conclusions, which increased their confidence in the possible reliability of Steele's memos. That meant they had to investigate them, which was the right thing to do. The ODNI report in January 6, 2017, confirmed in spades the accuracy of that part of Steele's dossier from about six months before, in June 20, 2016. We've been having some discussion above about which is the "main" allegation in the dossier. This one is certainly a main theme covered by several allegations, which means all those allegations are true. I'll check the CNN source later. -- Valjean (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So ABC got cited for "corroborated" because they said "rings true". Now, re CNN and Mr Ernie's topic "media criticism" (apologies for not getting to it immediately): several outlets have covered Mr Wemple's criticism and/or added their own disparagement, including Fox and Breitbart and Knews.uk and Daily Mail and National Review and The Nation -- perhaps enough for a statement "A 2017 CNN article saying US intelligence had partially corroborated the dossier was contradicted by a US intelligence report and criticized by the Washington Post's Erik Wemple.[1]2][3][4][5]". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Fox and Breitbart and Knews.uk and Daily Mail and National Review and The Nation"?? None of those sources are reliable enough to have any weight in any considerations here. The Nation is iffy, but sometimes usable. Wemple is also iffy has his long series of articles about the dossier are based on an iffy and somewhat counterfactual premise which he repeats in each article. He got fixated on a bad idea and pushes it, so his house of cards is built on a very poor foundation. -- Valjean (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "iffy" about Wemple, and you are skating very close to a BLP violation here. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Turns out Fox News Evening Commentary shows were more accurate about the dossier than the NY Times and Washington Post through Nov 2020.
 * Fox News Reporting branch was correct and on the story of a FBI investigation lead around by the DNC/Hillary Campaign.  Time some very active wiki editors eat their mistakes on this article and move on to something else.      Loopbackdude (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's parse only limited information was corroborated from the dossier relating to "time, location, and title information, much of which was publicly available." So at least some of it was right, but don't know how much. Does the fact much of it was publicly available detract from the veracity of the dossier? soibangla (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone support keeping the CNN cite? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be certain, we're dealing with this ref, right?
 * The sequence of events is important here. Did the dossier come first, or the intelligence reports? If it was the opposite, then the info in the dossier isn't that important. They simply agree. If, as implied by the CNN sources, the dossier made allegations and later "intercepted communications" provided confirmation for that content in the dossier, it's a whole other matter, and that's what these "US law enforcement and intelligence officials" are clearly saying.
 * CNN discusses newly found corroboration of "some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier". So this was not about previously known information from public sources. The rest of the article makes it clear that this was new info from "multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials". It was not about the pee tape. "Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals." That confirms it was classified information. "But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier". "The corroboration, based on intercepted communications, has given US intelligence and law enforcement “greater confidence” in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents". So the dossier writes something, and later "intercepted communications" confirm it. That's pretty good for the dossier.
 * Does the fact that the dossier and classified information agree weaken the justification for our use of this CNN source? Is there any of that which is affected by recent events? Pinging soibangla.
 * We could say "The intercepted communications boosted their confidence in the dossier." and it would be a reliably-sourced assertion. What we do write, based on two RS, is "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated." That seems good to me. -- Valjean (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake by suggesting removal within this thread, it's not the thread topic. So I'm starting a new thread, see below, "Citing a CNN article by Jim Sciutto and Evan Perez". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This WaPo fact-check is one good recent source: The Steele dossier: A guide to the latest allegations -- Valjean (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I linked that one at the beginning of the thread. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That you did. -- Valjean (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can say "the controversial opposition research as an "explosive dossier of unsubstantiated and salacious material about President Trump's alleged ties with Russia"", which we do. I think we can remove the atribuation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added one line of media criticism from WaPo's Erik Wemple regarding the February 2017 Sciutto-Perez CNN report, using a source suggested by Peter Gulutzan above. Hopefully this resolves at least some of the acrimony seen above, and is a better option than removing the CNN report, which seems unlikely to gain consensus at this time. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's a better way to deal with it as it shows the history of the matter. Public accusations are usually accompanied with the denial, and if later debunking/etc. comes along, the accusation should generally not be removed, but instead provide the newer debunking. That show's the flow of history and shows how initial reports may have been wrong and later dealt with. IOW, it shows who goofed and who got it right in the end. Steele didn't goof, but was lied to by one source that we know of, and we (and him!) are now learning about it.
 * I see that you used Wemple in two different places. I think the first use (about Carter Page) is spot on. I question the second use about the intercepted communications. That is just Wemple's griping. He gripes a lot without any evidence or debunking. He's like the fool in the old adage: "A fool may ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in seven years." Griping is worthless, but good debunking, with evidence, is priceless. -- Valjean (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Valjean, are you familiar with the adage that "News is the first rough draft of history"? I think that it is a good counter-argument to your frequent invocations of WP:PRESERVE (as well as a common sense qualifier). In a sense, this Wikipedia article is a "first rough draft of history," too, because it is based on a primary source (the Steele dossier), along with contemporaneous journalistic reports and various attributed opinion columns. If 10, 20, or 50 years from now our view of the Steele dossier has completely changed (regardless of if the dossier is considered proven true or totally discredited) due to coverage in tertiary sources such as peer-reviewed academic books or articles, perhaps relying in part on declassified American (or Russian!) documents not currently available, then much of the speculative opinion in this article would cease to serve an encyclopedic purpose. At that point, we would all likely agree that Wemple's criticism of CNN's February 2017 reporting should go. But we very likely might say the same thing about the February 2017 CNN report itself (which has not yet been corroborated by any other source almost five years later), and about Jonathan Chait's opinion column "I'm a Peeliever and You Should Be, Too," not to mention McClatchy's reporting on Cohen's cellphone "pinging" near Prague. In this hypothetical future, academic historians would determine (both through direct coverage and by omission) which facts/allegations are essential to understanding the topic, and which were simply the noisy byproduct of the partisan political fights of the era—thereby relieving much of our burden as Wikipedia editors to make such determinations ourselves! In light of the current state of our article's sourcing (including numerous attributed opinions and 21 separate citations to Jane Mayer's sympathetic portrait of Steele in The New Yorker, coincidentally enough citation 21 in the current revision), however, I do not think that one sentence of fairly tame (as you implicitly acknowledge) criticism/skepticism by The Washington Post's media critic is a grotesque violation of WP:UNDUE. To the contrary, I'm tempted to throw a WP:PRESERVE right back at you—and I also note that the Wemple column in question was not initially introduced by me, but rather first mentioned by Peter Gulutzan (above), prompting me to turn it into article content in an attempt to remedy that user's concerns.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Total Rework
As of Nov 2022, there are currently no reliable sources for the Steele Dossier, stating somewhere that the whole premise was a political smear campaign using former intelligence officials and then current FBI and DOJ officials to lend creditability.

The entire article needs to torn down and gutted and reworked for the reaction to mythos that the document as published by buzzfeed was. That it was used in support of investigations that lead to impeachment is a historical blunder for the media world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopbackdude (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A message from the future?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL! Loopbackdude, I suspect you meant 2021. I'm not sure what "mythos" you're talking about. The dossier had no role in the two impeachments, and we have always been clear that the dossier is largely unsubstantiated (which does not mean false) allegations and is flawed, but that isn't the whole story. What you're describing is right-wing fever dreams and conspiracy theories. They hope that the current matters involving Clinesmith, Danchenko, and Charles Dolan Jr. will somehow prove that the whole thing is false, fabricated, etc., and that it proves that the Russians didn't interfere in the election, that the dossier was the trigger that started the investigations into that interference, and that Trump and his campaign didn't have myriad illicit ties to Russian individuals and Russian intelligence agents which they kept secret and lied about. There is no evidence that such is the case. Those things did happen. Yes, the current events may well require changes to the article, but we wait for multiple RS to describe the situation before we make such changes. We don't write conspiracy theories. Be patient. We'll make the necessary changes as soon as we know what's really going on. -- Valjean (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "We'll make the necessary changes as soon as we know what's really going on." The problem is it was originally written with no regard to its validity. "We don't write conspiracy theories."  The dossier itself was the conspiracy Jawz101 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was always written based on what RS said at the time. That's what we do here, and we'll continue to do that. -- Valjean (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Shtove (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This has for 3+ years broken down to a discussion of anti Trump fan fiction is amazing as the Russia-Gate, the lack of evidence admitted by the Crowdstrike CEO Testimony and FBI basis for FISA warrants for investigation points have all broken down over the past 4 years. Now that clarity is now back to the sole source of the gathered hearsay perhaps actually looking at the counter evidence is, this is why I purpose tearing this article apart and rewriting in that context. We are writing about an over reported piece of fan fiction reported as a collection of political facts out of the blame shifting effort of the Hillary Clinton 2016 loss. That a class of media professionals, FBI and a large swath of the political class fell for this artifact of the Russia-Gate Theory. [User talk:Loopbackdude#top|talk] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopbackdude (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The article in the second paragraph seems to deliberately create the impression that the dossier was funded by the DNC who then lied about it. Multiple independent reports, including statements made under oath by the law firm Perkins Coie and testimony of Steele himself have made it unambiguous that the original commission came from an as-yet unidentified Republican candidate for President. The identity of the unidentified Republican is known to both the FBI and the Justice Department, but not withstanding four years of attacks from President Trump and virtually his entire administration, they chose to never make known the name of the Republicans who commissioned and directed the original study. It is true that after said Republican withdrew from the Presidential race they stopped funding the research and the Clinton campaign continued funding Perkins Coie to conduct normal opposition research, just as Trump had multiple firms doing "Oppo Research" on Clinton. There is no evidence that either the original Republican who commissioned the work, or Clinton, ever knew who Steele was until after the dossier was published (over the objections of Steele, Perkins Coie, Clinton and the original funding source from the Republican Party). The conservative right wing web site The Washington Free Beacon has also publicly disclosed that it hired Fusion GPS, through Perkins Coie, to conduct research about Trump of whom little was known at the time. None of these parties supervised or managed the process that generated the so-called "Steele Dossier". After the election, Clinton stopped funding any research but Fusion GPS, in the hopes of selling the research to some as yet to be found new party (perhaps for a book, perhaps for a TV special) continued the research on its own account. It was after this last step, Fusion GPS conducting the research for itself, that the Dossier was produced and later published illicitly. A substantial portion of this article and indeed all right wing articles about the Steele Dossier focus almost exclusively on the brief period when the Clinton campaign was commissioning Oppo Research on Trump. These highly biased reports choose to omit the fact that the study was begun by a Republican Presidential campaign, was continued by a muck-raking right wing web site and subsequent to the election funded by Fusion GPS itself for its own account. It was Fusion GPS and not Clinton or the original Republican backers, who are responsible for the preparation and later publication of the dossier. This needs to be included in the article. See: and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.92.105 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I could be mistaken, but I sense some conflating of the subject of opposition research (by several entities), and production of the dossier (by Steele for Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie/DNC/Clinton campaign). The exact sequence of events and parties involved is explained in detail, and, until recently, more clearly in the lead. Read more carefully.
 * After reading it, do you still find any confusion or lacking tidbits we should cover? -- Valjean (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

More doubts about Durham's treatment of the Danchenko and Sussmann matters
Although Sussmann and his claims have nothing to do with the dossier, this also mentions Danchenko and the dossier, so it's interesting:


 * "The conduct of Durham’s team provides further reason to maintain some skepticism toward any claims it makes that have yet to be tested in an adversarial proceeding. That is one reason why it has been surprising to see so much of the media treat the Igor Danchenko indictment and all of its claims about the Steele dossier as if they are unquestionably true in all their minute details."


 * "... a healthy amount of skepticism is always a good idea, particularly when a prosecutor has been less than completely trustworthy."

Valjean (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The author only mentions the Danchenko indictment in passing in the last two paragraphs (e.g., "I have no idea whether Sussmann or Danchenko will ultimately be convicted (though I have serious doubts as to Sussmann), and I have no interest in defending the Steele dossier."), but does make a good point that proving Sussmann lied beyond a reasonable doubt given the publicly available evidence will be difficult: "Baker was only one witness, but he took no notes, and he gave testimony to Congress that suggested he did not remember what Sussmann had told him about whom (if anyone) Sussmann was representing at the meeting. ... Durham's team responded by saying this was true but that Baker later accurately recalled what had happened by relying on notes that other officials had written." (Sussmann, of course, has pleaded not guilty.) The author also reminds us that "it used to be widely recognized that the government's allegations in a criminal case are just that, unless and until they are established at a trial, and that a healthy amount of skepticism is always a good idea, particularly when a prosecutor has been less than completely trustworthy. The fervor among liberals and the media for the Mueller investigation seemed to diminish that sentiment. Durham may end up reviving it." [emphasis added]TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, your last bolded part is good. I suspect that some attitudes will start to change. Previously we had little specific to go on, and now we're getting more info. Some are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and others, like myself, try to moderate our reactions and be specific, only going as far as the new evidence suggests. It's a balancing act, and not always easy. -- Valjean (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I think you'll like this article from right-wing attorney Andrew C. McCarthy: "John Durham Probe: Michael Sussmann Case Collapsing?"

I tend to be suspicious of McCarthy because of his involvement in some conspiracy theories. He's the one whose article was used by Trump to start the Spygate (conspiracy theory). (See this article: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/25/17380212/spygate-trump-russia-spy-stefan-halper-fbi-explained) I suspect that he may have regretted the way Trump ran with that story and built a huge conspiracy theory on a very shaky and weak foundation. I do like reading him as he still has a sharp legal mind, and this article shows that. National Review is a biased right-wing source that is controversial enough it was brought to WP:RS/P for a rating. It is close enough to center that we rate it as "no consensus", so it can be used with attribution.

He makes an important point here:


 * "...the exuberance over Durham's indictments of Sussmann and Danchenko, particularly among Trump supporters, was, if not irrational, then exaggerated."

The next point is important because many who are very skeptical of the Steele dossier (calling it totally false, fictitious, a hoax, etc.) fall into the trap of believing the charges against Danchenko, Sussmann, and Clinesmith definitively bury the dossier. Some even suggest this whole article should be gutted and we start all over again, but McCarthy resoundingly trashes such thinking:


 * "Durham may well be convinced that the Trump–Russia narrative was a hoax and that the Alfa Bank angle was similarly bogus,... [but] His indictments, however, make no such claim. Instead, they narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself. It is therefore irrelevant to Durham's prosecutions whether the Trump–Russia narrative was true or false." (italics original)

Danchenko may have lied by attributing some information to someone other than the real source ((possibly a dutiful and legitimate attempt (except to the FBI!) to protect sensitive and vulnerable sources)), but that may not have any effect on the truth or falsity of the allegation itself. It may still be true, false, or just a half-truth rumor, depending on its true reliability, and Steele always said he thought the dossier, as a whole, was probably only 70-90% true and guessed the "pee tape" allegation only had a 50% chance of being true. (That means Comey and I rate it a bit more likely to be true because we are "maybe" peelievers. )

So McCarthy's point is very relevant here: irrational or exaggerated reactions from Trump supporters to the news about Danchenko should be tempered greatly because the revelations about Danchenko haven't affected the truth or falsity of the allegations themselves. They are only relevant to the identity of the source(s), not what they reported. -- Valjean (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

WSJ article about Galkina
Would someone please email me the contents (or a link that works) of this article:


 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-in-cyprus-was-behind-key-parts-of-discredited-dossier-on-trump-11603901989

Valjean (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I also need help with this issue:
 * 1) "Olga Galkina, labelled by the FBI as "Source 3"..." Where does the FBI do this? What document?
 * 2) "The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she believed this sub-source was "one of the key sources for the 'Trump dossier'" and the source for allegations concerning Michael Cohen and events in Prague contained in Reports 135, 136, and 166, as well as Report 94's allegations concerning the alleged meeting between Carter Page and Igor Divyekin."

That "sub-source" is clearly Galkina, but we need a good source that makes the connection. -- Valjean (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'll email it to you in a moment and get thinking on 1 and 2. Firefangledfeathers 20:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Firefangledfeathers 20:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * About the "source 3" part, Galkina admits she is "source 3": "I believe that Mr. Danchenko identified me as Sub-Source 3..." so I think we're okay. -- Valjean (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: two sentences based on an article by Jane Mayer
Shall we remove, or keep, the two sentences that begin with the words "Jane Mayer said this part of the dossier seems true ..."? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The sentences in full are: Jane Mayer said this part of the dossier seems true, even if the name of an official may have been wrong. Page's congressional testimony confirmed he held meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials, during which Page conceded under questioning by Adam Schiff that the "potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft" might have been "briefly mentioned".[21][284]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove. "This part of the dossier" refers to the dossier claims that Carter Page met with Igor Sechin (for which there's never been any confirming evidence), who offered Mr Page a 19% stake in Rosneft in exchange for lifting of sanctions (described by others as "preposterous". Why Jane Mayer's opinions need 13 mentions in the article is hard to see, she's just a journalist with a History BA whose opinion re Steele has had a share of criticism ([e.g. here). The second sentence says "meetings" which is misleading (the Oxford dictionary first-mentioned meaning is an assembly of people, especially the members of a society or committee, for discussion or entertainment" but the word is being used here because Mr Page "met" e.g. said hello to people which is a second-mentioned meaning). The second sentence also says "top" which is just a word Jane Mayer has affection for (I count 15 occurrences in her article, and the only Rosneft person whom Carter Page definitely had an extended conversation with was Andrey Baranov whom Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler calls not "top" but "a lower-level Rosneft official" on 28 April 2019 in an article "A careful look at what the Steele dossier said vs. what the Mueller report said". The second sentence also says "Moscow" which is nearly meaningless since all big cities have thousands of people you can call officials. The second sentence also says Rosneft officials in the plural when in fact there is only evidence of one, the aforesaid Andrey Baranov, an old acquaintance that Carter Page watched soccer with. The two cited sources are Jane Mayer -- of course -- and the transcript of Carter Page's congressional testimony, but that testimony contradicts the second sentence -- Carter Page said he didn't think there was a mention and certainly didn't recall it although it might have been briefly mentioned, and denied there were meetings (he apparently prefers the primary dictionary meaning). The rest of the paragraph -- a recently added sentence -- looks okay. We're talking about violations of WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:ONUS, WP:DUE. The people who commented in thread Mayer on Carter Page's alleged "admission" were Valjean who added the sentences in the first place so this would be a partial revert, TheTimesAreAChanging (who re-inserted), Inf-in MD, Mr Ernie, Rauisuchian. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter Gulutzan, I have tweaked that content to satisfy your concerns. I see your point. The "meetings", although so described in RS, were about the larger matter of many meetings he held, some with top administration officials. But he "met" Baranov, who may not be a "top" official in the whole Russia context, but certainly important at Rosneft. So, in the context of Rosneft, I have changed that word to "met". In other contexts, Page did admit to meeting top administration officials on this trip, but that's not relevant in this precise context, so "top" is gone. -- Valjean (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Valjean, Responding to an RfC says "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring." I view your edit as unhelpful -- it's belated, it's only a fix for part of the problems, it even adds a new problem, citing a site that calls itself a blog. I object and reaffirm my !vote is Remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was following recommended practice at an AfD, where improvement is allowed during the AfD. I'll self-revert, but what about solving the problems? I was trying to "make ing edits that others may view as un helpful", and in such cases, I have seen at AfDs and RfCs that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination because their objections have been resolved. They are thus showing their goodwill and that they have no hidden agendas. Since you have objected, I'll follow the advice and not edit that content until we're done here. Then I'll be BOLD and add the revised version that has solved all legitimate objections. I expect to see a goodwill response at that time. We don't want to leave the article in violation of NPOV by removing only one side's POV to leave only the other side's opinions. -- Valjean (talk)
 * Just Security is not an ordinary blog in any sense, but legal subject matter experts. That source is widely used and approved here. Check it out and you'll see it's serious and quality work. -- Valjean (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. Per the detailed analysis, above. Inf-in MD (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove per above analysis. It just makes no sense encyclopedically to say "this thing seems true even if it's false." There's too many could have would haves still in the article. Was a significant part of Rosneft sold to Page's benefit? Did anything ever happen? Mueller didn't seem impressed with it either. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The causes of concern have been fixed. Mr Ernie, it's not totally false. Although the name was wrong, Sechin does communicate thru Baranov, so it was essentially true, as she stated. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- Valjean (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. I don't see what it adds to the first paragraph of the subsection which describes the dossier's allegation, the meeting that did take place and Baranov's relationship with Sechin. Alaexis¿question? 12:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment about only one sentence dependent on Mayer. Peter Gulutzan, somehow an error has crept into your nomination above. You have nominated two sentences, but the second sentence is based on Page's testimony and was added by User:TheTimesAreAChanging. It should stay, but maybe reworded from "Page's congressional testimony confirmed he held meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials, during which Page conceded under questioning by Adam Schiff..." to "During Page's congressional testimony, he conceded under questioning by Adam Schiff..." If you make that change, I will remove my objection to the removal of the first sentence attributed to Mayer as that stuff is covered by the facts already mentioned above it. -- Valjean (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Once we remove Mayer, then we are left with a PRIMARY source (the testimony), which is being improperly used to push a POV - that Page "conceded" something, that the topic "may" have come up, while eliding Page's immediate statement that he has no recollection of it coming up. The whole thing needs to go. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks it matters can compare the two sentences in Valjean's insertion with TheTimesAreAChanging's and call the word "reinstated" wrong if they see significant additions. Valjean attributed solely to Ms Mayer and anyone can compare Valjean's wording "secret meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials" with Ms Mayer's "secret meetings in Moscow with Rosneft and Kremlin officials" etc. but won't find it in Mr Page's testimony. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You link to the original version from 07:46, March 6, 2018, so I'll place it here, just for clarity:

There certainly are "significant additions".

You mention "reinstated", which is the word used above on this talk page by TheTimesAreAChanging at 22:26, 24 November 2021: "For now, I have reinstated the text with Page's denial of a quid pro quo as a compromise with Valjean and Rauisuchian. Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging."

I see the addition of Page's own words under testimony and his denial as really good "significant additions", and the other tweaks to my original version to be significant improvements which should have easily satisfied your objections on this talk page, and yet you rejected them. I wonder why? In the comparison below, I'll try to highlight by coloring and strike throughs the changes made by TheTimesAreAChanging.

Let's compare your deletion of a long-standing version with the version reinstated by TheTimesAreAChanging a day later:


 * Your deletion of long-standing content: Revision as of 15:34, November 23, 2021 by Peter Gulutzan
 * Edit summary: Removed one poorly sourced allegation re Carter Page. See talk page = Mayer on Carter Page's alleged "admission")
 * Edit (green was changed by TheTimesAreAChanging):


 * Reinstatement of "the improved version of this per talk" by TheTimesAreAChanging: Revision as of 22:21, November 24, 2021 by TheTimesAreAChanging
 * Edit summary: Reinstated the improved version of this per talk, as there is not a strong consensus in favor of deletion now that Rauisuchian has joined with Valjean to support inclusion, although a majority of participants have favored deletion thus far.)
 * Edit:

Later, thinking I was making an addition that built on suggestions on the talk page, and thus be an agreeable improvement, I made a small improvement, but that offended you, for which I'm sorry. Let's see how it looked compared to the above.
 * My small edit at 07:45, December 6, 2021
 * Edit summary: (tweaks to satisfy some points made in RfC)
 * Edit:

I moved the Mayer ref to the first sentence; added the mention of Baranov; got rid of "top Moscow and Rosneft officials"; changed this "held meetings with top Moscow and Rosneft officials, during which" to this "met with Andrey Baranov, who was Rosneft's chief of investor relations,"

You rejected these improvements, so I reverted them with this edit summary: (Self-revert requested improvements because the RfC is not finished.)

You rejected these further improvements, at the time based on the ongoing RfC, which apparently has different rules for editing than an AfD. So what to do? Will you accept all these sincere attempts to improve the content, according to all your objections, or will you keep finding new objections? (Pinging Rauisuchian as they are mentioned above.) -- Valjean (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're adding the third sentence and acting as if that contradicts what I said about the first and second sentences, but readers can count to two. Every word by Page that was quoted in TheTimesAreAChanging's second sentence was in your second sentence, there was no "addition of Page's own words under testimony and his denial" there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused since I wrote parts of two of those versions, and the first and second sentences have been altered in the process by me and TheTimesAreAChanging. The "addition of Page's own words" is in the ref, not directly in the text. Maybe that's what's confusing us. Not sure at this late hour. Page's denial is indeed an addition: "However, Page insisted that "there was never any negotiations, or any quid pro quo, or any offer, or any request even, in any way related to sanctions."[4]

What's important is to focus on the improved version that would be in place if you allowed all the improvements. Let's compare:

Original version from 07:46, March 6, 2018:

Improved version which combines all improvements and alters and leaves out several things you didn't like in the first two sentences:

Isn't that a lot better? I find it rather bizarre that when you complain about several details and we fix them, you refuse to accept the improvements.

BTW, here's a good analysis of Page's "bizarre testimony". He's not exactly the most honest or transparent person. Evasion and double talk are his modus operandi. When pressed about some uncomfortable truth, he remains silent, but when pressed he grudgingly admits, but only partially. The full truth is always about a half-inch ahead of his tongue. He knows exactly where the bright line for outright perjury lies, so he flies under the radar, thus proving he knows what is the truth and that he's carefully steering around it. Only someone with prior and secret knowledge does that. -- Valjean (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC) '' Stricken comments per concerns below. -- Valjean ''
 * Do others think Valjean's comments are on-topic? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict - thisis a reply to Valjean) Your comments above are skating very very close to a WP:BLP violation, and perhaps over the line already. Please refactor, or I will do it for you. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I've read too many RS describing Page's actions in much worse terms, but I'll refactor to avoid a distraction here. Read that Vox article. It's a RS and is quite revealing. -- Valjean (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Difficult to argue either keep or remove. My opinion has shifted to more neutral on the passage, given a couple things: first, that the contents of this passage are essentially included in preceding and following content in the same section; second that Washington Post and New York Times have shifted to a relatively negative view on the dossier overall. The Mayer source (used 21 times in the article) is good, as Mayer has a nuanced view of the dossier and this particular claim in 2018 that already approximated what reliable sources are saying currently. Although the revisions by Valjean and TheTimesAreAChanging are good, the paragraph is tough to fix in a way that people like and arguably the "seems true" wording downplays in a way the rest of the paragraph. That being said, this The Atlantic source would be nice to include somewhere on an unrelated note. Rauisuchian (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rauisuchian, that's a good article. Frum is a good analyst. He mentions the risk of Russian disinfo in the dossier. We have long known the FBI's view of that subject and how they rejected it. We have content about that in this article, so I have given it a heading now: Risk of contamination with Russian disinformation considered. He rightly writes "the Steele dossier is just a speck", but it has always been magnified and used as a foil to distract, giving it much more weight and importance than it warrants. It has been used as a flashy bauble by TFG to distract from all the proven misdeeds mentioned by Frum. It's part of TFG's deceptive counternarrative: Russia investigation origins counter-narrative.
 * Your second point about "have shifted to a relatively negative view on the dossier overall" is of limited value right here as it does not seem to apply to this particular section of the dossier. As Frum writes: "Anti-anti-Trump journalists want to use the Steele controversy to score points." They do it by making broad negative remarks about the dossier, but it is OR to then apply those broad, nonspecific, ad hominem remarks to specific situations without RS that speak to those exact situations. We need to be careful not to fall in that pit. We're getting RS commentary that does apply to specific aspects and faults of the dossier, and quite a bit has already found its way into the article. That's good.
 * Reliable sources do "downplay" his evasive denials: he denies in an evasive manner and RS notice and comment on it. That's fair game for content here. I think you'll find this article a good analysis of Page's "bizarre testimony". Especially search for these phrases and read that content: "He also sent some curious emails to Trump aides beforehand", "It is certainly curious that Page is emailing Trump advisers in guarded, roundabout language about an upcoming trip to Russia that is part of a “strategy” discussed with others on the campaign." and "Eight days later, on May 24, 2016, Page sent another secretive-sounding email to Gordon:...Rather than saying too much, I’ll just refer to the seven points on my list which I sent last night." He lied about this, because he was indeed going to Russia on behalf of the campaign, with a carefully designed list of "seven points", and he knew it had to be kept secret. Something fishy was going on. On his trip, he made contact with high officials and denied this at first, but then was forced to admit it under oath. It must have come as a shock to him when he discovered that his interrogators knew what he had secretly told the campaign about these important meetings. -- Valjean (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If there are no comments in the next few days, I'll ask for formal close. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good and reasoned points above by Valjean. Not only the Vox article above, but also the links within that article are potentially useful for references. Although from 2017, the Vox article was also quite cautious about the dossier already and detailed in its description. It's probable that RS's will take quite some time to revisit this particular subtopic just based on the amount of interest in it (decreased). So it should not be a rush to remove the passage or similar ones if not directly contradicted. Rauisuchian (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)