Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 5

Pissgate RfD
I have listed the redirect Pissgate, which redirects to this article, at redirects for discussion. All are welcome to participate at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 25. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wording on Republican funding
The article currently states:


 * The research was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump to be the Republican Party nominee for president.

The "Stop Trump movement" is linked in the sentence.

But the cited article (WP) actually says:


 * Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

Note singular. One client. In fact, it's possible that client is Ted Cruz or a supporter of Ted Cruz, who was not involved in the Stop Trump movement per se (because he was running).

Might seem like a semantic issue, but there's a pretty big distinction between attributing the funding to an anonymous Republican donor and attributing it to an entire movement of people including figures such as Mitt Romney. 73.61.20.1 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen the phrase "anti-Trump Republicans" in some sources, but most sources (like WaPo) mention one primary donor during the Republican primaries. FallingGravity 16:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Dossier was not funded by Republican opposition according to WaPo
A distinction must be made between the dossier and the alternative opposition research conducted through FusionGPS. According to the Washington Post's recent report, a Republican conducting opposition research utilized FusionGPS prior to the dossier being created to investigate Trump's financial ties to Russia. The DNC / Clinton Campaign employed FusionGPS, afterwhich, the dossier author, Christopher Steele, was hired, and the dossier was created. This is an important distinction that needs to be addressed in the opening paragraph, where it is implied the dossier was partially funded by Republican opposition research -- which, as of present, is unfounded. Source: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.115.97 (talk • contribs)
 * I'll have to admit that the IP has a point. What happened to the original research before Steele started creating the dossier? They aren't the same thing. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS after the Republican stopped funding research, and then he proceeded to write his reports, which ended up being a 35-page dossier. Those 35 pages are the subject of this article. What preceded them is not part of the dossier, but still is part of the history. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is made clear in this analysis by the Washington Post. selfworm Talk ) 07:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The opening summary mentions the initial research but still does not specify that the dossier was created afterward, nor does it make clear that Steele was hired subsequent to DNC/Clinton introduction, as outlined in the WaPo article. As it stands, the summary is ambiguous as to whether the dossier was begun under Republican opposition funding. Those are two separate events, and seeing as this article is specifically about the subsequent event (the dossier), I feel as if it should be clarified. -- 96.95.115.97 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "does not specify that the dossier was created afterward, nor does it make clear that Steele was hired subsequent to DNC/Clinton introduction," The article states: "Some of the pushback on the left has focused on the fact that a still-unidentified Republican client retained Fusion GPS to do research on Trump before the Clinton campaign and the DNC did. Thus, they argue, it's wrong to say the dossier was just funded by Democrats. But the dossier's author, Steele, wasn't brought into the mix until after Democrats retained Fusion GPS. So while both sides paid Fusion GPS, Steele was only funded by Democrats." So I'd say that the article clearly states that "Steele was hired subsequent to DNC/Clinton introduction" or did I misunderstand what your problem was?selfworm Talk ) 17:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there's some confusion here. The IP contributor was probably talking about an early version of this Wikipedia article, not the WaPo report. FallingGravity 21:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you Falling Gravity.selfworm Talk ) 23:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. How about something like this? The dossier was produced as part of opposition research during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A research firm, Fusion GPS, was initially hired and funded by an unnamed Republican during the Republican Party presidential primaries. After Trump won the primaries, attorney Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm took over the Fusion GPS contract on behalf of the DNC and Clinton presidential campaign. Fusion GPS hired Steele to research any Russian connections shortly thereafter, when the Russian hacking of Democratic computers was revealed. Following Trump's election, Steele continued to research the subject with financing from Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS, and he passed on the information to British and American intelligence services.


 * Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's much clearer and gives a more accurate portrayal of what we know as of this writing. It seems to be a distinction that some media organizations have had difficulty articulating and I read an article in Vanity Fair today that explained it in similar detail to yours above. As of present, it's certainly unclear what role the prior Republican-funded research played in Steele's subsequent investigation, but his hiring after DNC/Clinton involvement is an important characteristic as he is the author of the dossier. -- 96.95.115.97 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's much better. What happened to the original, GOP-funded research? We don't seem to know. Did it become part of, or inform, Steele's research? We don't seem to know that either. All we know now is the sequence of events, and that the 35-page dossier was Steele's work.
 * The GOP-funded research should still be mentioned as the historical prelude to the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

WaPo has updated their claims
According to the Washington Post: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

Unless the Clinton campaign and DNC isn't considered to be Republican opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪12.125.176.58‬ (talk • contribs)

Under the "Veracity" section
The section states: "'On January 6, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence released a report assessing 'with high confidence' that Russia's combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Vladimir Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton's candidacy and helping Trump. Gillette wrote: 'Steele's dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20.'" It was already known that Russians had infiltrated DNC computer systems and accessed opposition research by June 20th. In fact, this had broken in the US media the week before (June 14th, 2016). Many news organizations were already posing the question / suggesting the possibility that Russia was actively assisting the Trump Campaign through the use of cyber espionage. Stories regarding Russian cyber-propaganda, attempts to influence the Brexit vote, and the Russian "Troll Army," were already rampant in the western press. Therefore, it can hardly be considered prophetic that Steele's dossier came to the same conclusion many independent sources had already surmised by June 20th. Should the timeline of this hack / news-break not be noted, lest readers believe the above statement occurred in a vacuum of Russian-related events? I mean honestly, how many of you believed the Russian hacking of the DNC's opposition research was anything but a blatant attempt to assist Trump's campaign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.115.97 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it has been confirmed that Putin was trying to harm Clinton and help Trump. We already cover that in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

History section
The section sub headings don't really describe the contents of the subsections. For example in "Steele dossier funded by Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign", there's like one or two sentences about the funding, and the rest is the history and time line of the dossier. I suggest we just say something like "Since April 2016".  Volunteer Marek  15:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed those headings, mostly because they created a very short paragraph followed by a very long paragraph. FallingGravity 02:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I don't buy that reasoning. The first paragraph was the "lede" for the whole section, and the subheadings identified distinctly different phases in the history of the opposition research. Now it's just one very long section, with no indication that we're describing distinctly different things.. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO that first paragraph "lede" is flawed and should be removed. It says:
 * According to reports, the dossier and the investigations preceding it were all part of opposition research on Trump. The investigation into Trump was initially funded by "Never Trump" Republicans and later by Democrats.[13][14][15]


 * What does "investigations preceding it" mean?
 * "Never Trump Republicans" makes no sense; as far as we know it was funded by a single person, an unidentified donor who opposed Trump.
 * We already say all this (better) in the next paragraph, so this introductory paragraph is unnecessary.

The paragraph is left over from when there were subheadings in the section - having been intended as a kind of lede paragraph. That is no longer needed and I think we should simply delete that two-sentence paragraph. Even if we restore the subsection headings, which I gather is under discussion here. We don't have to have a lede paragraph in a section, and this one is very poor. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we've been able to get rid of "Never Trump Republicans" now that we know who it was. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Corroborated information
I made a revision here, removing synth from this CNN article. I was reverted here by FallingGravity. I contend since the CNN article says officials familiar with the process, not this specific case, say they think the FBI would only use the information if they had corroborated it. It is not the same as CNN saying " CNN reported that corroborated information from the dossier had been used as part of the basis for getting the FISA warrant". It is a clear case of our article saying a+b=c. So since the CNN does not clearly state the information was corroborated vs what CNN actually said which was officials familiar with the process said they think if parts were used, it was corroborated. With the CNN article going on to say the officials would not say what or how much was actually corroborated. PackMecEng (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should just stick to the source. I've tried to avoid adding wordy explanations, but I guess it seems necessary here. I've updated the article accordingly. FallingGravity 18:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Russian sources
The lead currently does not specify that many of the sources for the dossier were Russian nationals. I think this is important information for the reader to know, because, obviously, the conclusion is that the Clinton Campaign, via an intermediary, was colluding with the Russians to try to undermine Trump's election campaign. FredericaFan (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please add it with a solid citation. The dossier was a document created from sources who were Russian nationals. It's an important fact that should be reflected in the lead. MiamiManny (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This needs to be in here. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would we not then need to list all the sources, not just the Russian ones. We cannot single out one aspect of the dossier.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Steele has not revealed any of his sources... nor will he. It's a reasonable conclusion that many of them were Russian nationals, but that is guesswork / original research. Are there Reliable Sources making a point of this? --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Change lede sentence from unverified allegations to partially verified
The current lede states the following:

(Bold part mine) Parts of the document HAVE been verified. See:


 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
 * http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html
 * http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213800/U-S-officials-verify-Trump-dirty-dossier.html

I suggest we change the lede either:

Version A:

Version B:

Change:  Per discussion below, this version seems to have support:

Please respond with Version A, Version B, or keep current. Casprings (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you post a "support-or-oppose" question here and then immediately make the change anyhow? And in the lede? The appropriate way to make a significant change in the lede is to get some feedback, some support, and THEN change the longstanding wording. I am going to change it back until it become clear if this change has consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically to trigger discussion among those who watched the page. It’s what I think it should be, so go ahead and do it and let the discussion occur. Happy to change it back until this is resolved.Casprings (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. ... None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs. ... CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump. ... Officials did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations or meetings between Russian officials and US citizens, including associates of then-candidate Trump. One of the officials stressed to CNN they have not corroborated "the more salacious things" alleged in the dossier.
 * Neither. It makes more sense just to say "allegations" without adding additional qualifiers. Some parts have been verified, while other parts remain unverified (most notably the most salacious details). According to WP:ALLEGED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Focusing on the verified or unverified parts also violates WP:POV. FallingGravity 20:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because absolutely no reliable sources claim to have confirmed ANY of Steele's "allegations of misconduct and collusion" by Trump. (This is probably why Casprings provides only a series of links, without quoting any relevant portions to explain what, specifically, has supposedly been "corroborated.") From CNN's original "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier":
 * None of Casprings's other sources change this assessment. The Daily Mail article he cites, for example, is from an unreliable source and is completely derivative of CNN's account. Former CIA official John Sipher's highly speculative opinion piece for Slate also contains no new information and was thoroughly refuted by independent journalist Marcy Wheeler's "John Sipher's Garbage Post Arguing The Steele Dossier Isn't Garbage"; Sipher's primary argument is that the U.S. intelligence community "corroborated" Steele on Russian hacking, but as Wheeler notes: "The Steele dossier was way behind contemporary reporting on the hack-and-leak campaign .. What the timeline of the hacking allegations in the Steele dossier (and therefore also 'predictions' about leaked documents) reveal is not that his sources predicted the hack-and-leak campaign, but on the contrary, he and his sources were unbelievably behind in their understanding of Russian hacking and the campaign generally (or his Russian sources were planting outright disinformation). Someone wanting to learn about the campaign would be better off simply hanging out on Twitter or reading the many security reports issued on the hack in real time." (I also particularly like the part where Sipher cites a Michael Isikoff report explicitly based on the dossier in order to "corroborate" the dossier!) Only the BBC provides a specific "corroboration," namely "that a Russian diplomat in Washington was in fact a spy," albeit with the caveat that "So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump campaign joined with Russia to steal the US presidency—nothing." In sum, Casprings's proposed edit is a bait-and-switch that misrepresents all of his sources; it would be more accurate to say that, whatever other unspecified details may have been confirmed, not a single one of Steele's allegations against Trump has been "corroborated" following over a year of frenzied investigation by media outlets and intelligence agencies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the one playing with what sources say:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html


 * Over and over WP:RS have stories saying parts of the document have been verified. We should reflect that fact.Casprings (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead already states that "In February, it was reported that some details related to conversations between foreign nationals had been independently corroborated, giving U.S. intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence in some aspects of the dossier as investigations continued," which has the merit of actually being true. Your revision—"partially verified allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government"—is completely inaccurate, as anyone that takes the time to read CNN et al. can quickly confirm for themselves.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither makes sense to me. Just say "allegations". Some of the things in the dossier have been verified (like meetings between certain people); some have not (like the salacious stuff, which we do not include in our article anyhow). We can avoid endless arguments about whether some "independent journalist" is more reliable than a "former CIA official", or whether certain information has been confirmed but it's not specifically about Trump so it doesn't count, or whatever else would result in the article never being stable and all of us wasting enormous amounts of time over it. Just say "allegations" and be done with it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The current lead has been stable for a long time and does a good job of explaining that some of the dossier's content "related to conversations between foreign nationals" has been verified, while the allegations against Trump remain unverified. (If/when that changes, we can, of course, revisit Casprings's proposal.) I see no good reason to throw all of that out. The broader point is that the lead is supposed to summarize the body, which is why drive-by POV edits to the lead are particularly unhelpful absent any new reporting and any corresponding additions to the body.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not split it up? - We can take the second sentence and break it up into two. Something like

Note I purposefully used the word "information" not "allegations".  Volunteer Marek  22:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, screw it, it really should be "Some of the allegations in the dossier have been independently corroborated". The Manafort and Carter Page aspects most definitely qualify as "allegations" and these HAVE been confirmed.  Volunteer Marek  22:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek makes a valid point: That a FISA court considered independently corroborated allegations from the dossier sufficient justification for the FBI to monitor Carter Page's communications probably should be in the lead, and certainly has more bearing on Trumpworld than conversations solely between foreign nationals. It is still worth noting, however, that whatever was confirmed—and whatever the FBI learned from spying on Page—has yet to result in an indictment, so we do need to be careful about stating or implying that Page is guilty of a crime.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I know what Volunteer Marek's reference to Paul Manafort, above, may mean. An August 22, 2016 Steele memo states that "YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorized kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged in Western media," but that had already been reported by The New York Times on August 14. The allegation that Manafort recieved $12.7 million in illicit payments from Yanukovych is based on unverified ledgers supplied by the current Ukrainian government and has not been indepedently confirmed; however, even if it is true, Steele was not the first to report it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as is – The bulk of the dossier consists indeed of unverified allegations. Some facts about people mentioned in the dossier have been confirmed (Mr. X was a spy, Mr. Y met Mr. Z), but no evidence of "misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government" has yet come to light, despite quite intense efforts to find such proof. — JFG talk 08:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as is To describe a lengthy document that makes many allegations and statements in which only a few peripheral statements have been verified as "independently corroborated", even partially, leaves a misimpression. If we did use that language, we would have to thoroughly canvass the allegations of libel and the Cohen evidence in the lead if we were to have a neutral point of view. The current lede is the best option on the table. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment:  I think I am going to start a formal RFC. It will be hard to get consensus without one.Casprings (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about use of unverified
Per the discussion here, do you support:

1. Removing the word unverified as a qualifier for the term allegations. An example of possible wording in the lede would be:

2.  In the lede, describing that some of the information in the document is verified. An example of possible wording is:

Please respond with: Casprings (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Both Remove both unverified and also include that the some information is verified
 * Support 1, Oppose 2 Remove unverified, but do not include in the lede that some information is verified
 * Oppose 1, Support 2 Keep unverified, but support adding to the lede that some information is verified.
 * Oppose both Oppose changes. Keep unverified and do not include information in the lede that some of the information is independently verified

Survey

 * Support Both: As OP - As mentioned above, large parts of the information in the document are now verified. We should reflect that fact. We should drop the use of unverified and include information that information in the document has been independently verified. Keep verified as a qualifier is unneeded, as an allegation suggests something is unverified per its definition, and pushes the article towards a POV as it adds an unneeded discrediting qualifier. We should not do that, especially when other information in the document is independently verified.Casprings (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ummm... what? How can "unverified" be a discrediting qualifier if it's true that the allegations are unverified? As you posted this RFC, you should know that "unverified allegations" in this paragraph specifically refers to allegations of misconduct and collusion, of which there's no public evidence. Politrukki (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 1, Oppose 2. Some of it's been verified, some of it's not been verified. Is there any source that describes the approximate verified to unverified ratio? Can we truly say "most of it's verified" or "most of it's unverified"? If not, then we shouldn't try to give either impression. FallingGravity 08:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposed wording does not say "most of it's verified". Nice try though.  Volunteer Marek   05:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose both The thrust of the dossier (and what everyone cares about) is that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. None of those major allegations have been substantiated, and describing the dossier as unverified is clear and accurate. I could be convinced on the first suggested change, but to do both would be far out of bounds. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that using "unverified" is appropriate, but, to be specific, option 1 is about allegations of misconduct and collusion, not about describing the dossier as a whole. Politrukki (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 1, Oppose 2: I favor a simple "allegations" without opening the can-of-worms about verification - way too complex for the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 1. Version 2 includes unnecessary repeat (read 2nd paragraph currently in the lead). My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 1, Oppose 2: Allegation assumes unproved. Some…has been corroborated is problematic unless it is close to an explanation of "some". Keep the lead clean. O3000 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose both: The current lede is preferable. Four options in this EfC will make evaluation difficult. It should be restructured. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling it will be possible to come up with a consensus even with four options. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything is possible but it is not ideal. Three of the four listed options include changing the lede. One of the three includes each of the other two - is rank implied e.g. if not A then B? Are options that support or oppose only A or B allowed? If some specify rank and others do not and oppose/support-only are allowed (we already have one) we have 10 possible options: A not B, B not A, A before B, B before A, A and B, A only, not A only, B only, not B only, neither. A yes/no question would be much more clear. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support 1, Oppose 2, without affirming WHAT has been verified, it's a bit pointless to say that 'some' is, apart from being unhelpfully 'muddling'.Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose both – Most of the dossier is garbage, which is why no reputable newspaper wanted to touch it before BuzzFeed spilled the beans. The few things that have been confirmed are either of no importance or had been independently reported prior to being incorporated in the dossier. — JFG talk 23:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Honeat question: has anything been shown as false?Casprings (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See Top 10 things to know about dossier - the author of the article is credible, and the information needs to be included in this article (which should be renamed to Steele dossier). Get the story right. Atsme 📞📧 15:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't prove a negative. Logic 101. We may as well say "my dossier asserts that Casprings had a glass of orange juice this morning", and ask skeptics "can you prove that Casprings did not drink that juice this morning?" — JFG talk 02:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bunkum. It is most certainly possible to prove something false. Hell, most logic and math theorems rely on that approach. In fact, there are lots of claims in the dossier that could easily be proven false ("Person A was in place X at time T") if they were indeed false. So asking "has anything been shown as false" is a perfectly legitimate question. You need to go back to Logic school  Volunteer Marek   05:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * JFG this is not the Bizarropedia. Incidentally, lead does not float in water. I just proved it. Casprings, what did you have for breakfast this morning? SPECIFICO  talk  01:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It gives locations and times of meetings. You can certainly show you were not or couldn’t not have been at a location for a meeting. That is done all the time.Casprings (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See Anthony Cormier, "This Is The Inside Of Trump's Lawyer's Passport," BuzzFeed News, May 5, 2017: "Many news organizations attempted to verify or debunk claims in the dossier, including that Cohen was in Prague around that time. A BuzzFeed News reporter spent three days visiting about 45 hotels in the city and found no evidence Cohen had stayed in any of them during that period. Cohen has said that he couldn't have been in Prague because he was visiting the University of Southern California with his son on a college baseball recruiting trip. He posted a photograph from his daughter's social media account showing the two of them together in Los Angeles on the final week of August." That said, Steele's time frame of "August/September 2016" is so vague that it is virtually impossible to definitively falsify.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support 1, Oppose 2 - Fallingravity's position is correct. Neutralitytalk 05:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 1, Oppose 2 Support Both (changed per Carter Page. 01:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)) Simple and neutrally conveys RS reporting. Editors, please, do not present your OR ruminations on the dossier here. They're quite corrigible, distracting, and irrelevant.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose both - keep the long-standing "unverified allegations" as the summary or bulk is that. The couple disproofs and couple supports are minor amounts that should be down in the detail section.  They are not sufficient to move the overall view of mostly unverified.    Also, the phrase more accurately portrays the dossier as it was constructed, a collection of rumors that is not within itself supported further.   Can also support phraing from RS with NYT phrasing "unverified" or "unsupported" and Guardian 'dodgy dossier'.  Also,  "unverified" seems more neutral covering rather than listing various significant WEIGHT (by Google count) of phrasings to prefixes 'fake' or 'false' or 'politically motivated'.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 1, Oppose 2. For reasons described above. "Unverified" is not entirely correct, nor is "verified". Furthermore "unverified" is an unnecessary qualifier for "allegations". #2 too strongly implies to the average reader that the majority, if not entirety, of the dossier is factual. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A big problem for this RfC is that it was started, and most !votes were made before the November 2nd testimony of Trump's former foreign policy adviser Carter page to the House Intelligence Committee, in which he corroborated parts of the dossier.  Volunteer Marek   05:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support both in light of Carter Page's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Nov 2, which further corroborated some of the info in the dossier.  Volunteer Marek   05:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support both, per Carter Page's testimony confirming previously denied details in the dossier, such as a meeting with Rosneft officials (mentioned on pp. 30-31 of dossier, which alleges a deal, supposedly made with Trump's "authority", that Trump would get 19% of Rosneft if he lifted the sanctions). Trump's own actions and numerous declarations have always been very open about wanting to lift the sanctions. Immediately after he won the election, the money was transferred to a Cayman Islands account, but we have no evidence Trump has received it. Here are some links which describe the sale and transfer of funds through shell companies, a Russian bank (in an illegal - in Russia - transaction that could only happen by Putin's direct command and intervention), various businesses, and Qatar, some of which have significant connections to Trump's business interests: 1 2 3 4 5 It is only because of the detective work by numerous skilled investigative journalists that we could find out about what happened to the money. $11 billion is a whole lot of money! -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC) (Revised and sourced to ensure no BLP violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC))
 * Page confirmed meeting with Andrey Baranov, Rosneft's head of investor relations. But, I don’t think he confirmed any offer of a stake in Rosneft. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Baranov mentioned in the dossier? Is Page's statement "Beyond a shadow of a doubt, there was never any negotiations, or any quid pro quo, or any offer, or any request even, in any way related to sanctions" consistent with the dossier? Politrukki (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose both rewrite per WP:PUBLICFIGURE with inline-text attribution to RS and include updates that include factually accurate information less the editorialized opinions, innuendos and projections. Examples of sources to include: this update, and this one. Atsme 📞📧 16:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first source is not RS. Neither of your sources actually support your !vote. And what in the world does WP:PUBLICFIGURE have to do with this? Are you just posting random sources and policies?  Volunteer Marek   17:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My first source is as reliable as every other source that has been cited in this article so stop the fallacious claims. You also seem to have forgotten that we are still talking about BLPs and in particular WP:PUBLICFIGURE so you might want to refresh your memory about what is and isn't acceptable regarding "well documented" allegations. Then run over to OR and read the policy on primary sources and how to handle allegations against a BLP, and you might also want to read V. I seriously doubt unsupported claims by "anonymous sources" fit the bill as being either factual or reliable, especially when it involves "opposition research" that was paid for by the opposing political party with intent to smear a living person, not to mention a political party that is currently under the microscope because of allegations by the former head of the DNC, Donna Brazile, that the primary was rigged. If there was anything substantial in that dossier about Trump, he would have been indicted by now. Don't forget, in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty so you might want to refresh your memory about that part of the BLP policy as well. Atsme 📞📧 00:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "I seriously doubt unsupported claims by "anonymous sources" " - except that's false. The sources here are secondary sources. Hell, some of them are not even anonymous. Like a guy named Carter Page. Once again you are making completely false and almost incomprehensible comments which consist mostly of just randomly throwing out various Wikipedia policies without rhyme and reason, and pretending that you've somehow "proven" something. That's not how this works.  Volunteer Marek   22:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Daily Caller is in no way a RS for anything other than its own opinion in its own article. We are allowed to cite unreliable sources in that context. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC),
 * Atsme, none of your arguments are usable as you're not dealing with RS policy, but seeking to deal with your real world POV and right great wrongs. We use what RS say, regardless if they mention anonymous sources, are negative, etc. We use them, attribute opinions, etc. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument bears no fruit, and neither does badgering editors over their iVote. Refresh your memory and read WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RS again. And please, discuss your POV arguments in the Discussion section that was established for that purpose, not here in the iVote section. Atsme 📞📧 12:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's. Just. Not. Reliable. It's garbage. In fact it's garbage that hires white supremacists and racists. No freakin' way you get to use that source.  Volunteer Marek   21:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If there was anything substantial in that dossier about Trump, he would have been indicted by now. ding-ding-ding. C'mon Atsme. Is the dossier admissible evidence under the US Constitution?  Holy cannoli.  That's why the investigators have to check it out.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * political party that is currently under the microscope... - More like under the microphone booktour. She's already retracted, btw. SPECIFICO  talk  01:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, please use the Discussion section to ring your bell and in the future, please avoid putting dings in the iVote. Dings in the finish look like hail. Atsme 📞📧 12:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You may respond in either section, but I haven't heard you rebut either of the points I made above. Meanwhile, more: I dispute that the dossier has been the central focus of media reporting on this +and+ the weight of RS description is an absolute WP standard that's independent of any WP user's stance. You may feel more comfortable with media that reject the mainstream view, but that doesn't de-mainstream it. SPECIFICO talk  22:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support 1, weak support 2 - The first is factual, verifiable, and neutrally worded. The second is technically verifiable, but I'm entirely not comfortable with the word "corroborated" which tends to validate the dossier more than I think is warranted. BullRangifer does make some points worth considering about the recent Carter Page bean spilling.- MrX 02:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 1, oppose 2 - The word "allegations" is fairly neutral and doesn't imply that the allegations are true or false; the other paragraphs of the lead explain that well enough. Saying Some of the information in the dossier has been independently corroborated. is deliberately misleading from my point of view.  Some of the contents of my personal diary have been independently corroborated.  So what? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You not the president of the United States? If you and your diary were notable, then the fact that some of the contents was independently corroborated would indeed be something to include. You're sort of making a point against yourself there.  Volunteer Marek   22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But saying that "some of it has been verified" doesn't tell us anything with regards to whether any particular statements have been verified. Especially in this case, where there's good reason to believe that some of it is not accurate.  This is still the "piss-gate" dossier. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support 1, oppose 2 - My thoughts are essentially the same as power~enwiki's. Much of the allegations in the dossier are unverified, but some are. The use of 'allegations' without qualifiers is neutral as to the truth of those allegations. Saying that some facts have been independently corroborated is unhelpful and misleading, some facts in Star Wars can be independently corroborated, it doesn't mean that Jedis really fought the Sith long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Cjhard (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Both Allegations is clear enough and But it appears as though US intelligence officials do take some chunk of what Steele found quite seriously. "Its broad assertion that Russia waged a campaign to interfere in the election is now accepted as fact by the US intelligence community. CNN also reported earlier this year that US investigators have corroborated some aspects of the dossier, specifically that some of the communications among foreign nationals mentioned in the memos did actually take place." Other sources also report corroboration. (Officials said some of the information in the dossier has been corroborated, but other parts - matching our wording) The fact that some of it has been corroborated is true and it'll require quite a stretch to think that wording implies "piss-gate" is true. Perhaps additional qualifiers can be given for the corroborated though if it's confusing-which I don't think so. Galobtter (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. I was going to say that "unverified" is unnecessary, but changed my mind after reviewing sources. Many reliable sources deem it necessary to add that the collusion allegations are unverified/unproven/unsubstantiated, so keeping the qualifier would seem due to avoid confusion.
 * 1) "That assertion is unproven — as are many of the other claims in the document. That includes the overarching claim that Russian government officials allied with Trump employees and campaign aides to help his election." The Washington Post
 * 2) "It contains unproven allegations of coordination between Trump's advisers and Russians" Chicago Tribune
 * 3) "yet unproven allegations that the Russians had wanted Mr. Trump to win the election, that Russians had shared valuable information about Hillary Clinton with the Trump campaign" PBS
 * 4) "It contains unproven allegations of coordination between Trump's advisers and Russians on hacking the emails of prominent Democrats" AP
 * 5) "The specific claims about campaign collusion have not been verified" The Hill
 * 6) "dossier containing unverified allegations about collusion between President Trump and Russia The Hill
 * 7) "document ... which contains unverified allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia" Newsweek
 * 8) "There has been no public corroboration of the salacious allegations against Mr. Trump, nor of the specific claims about coordination between his associates and the Russians." The New York Times
 * 9) "It contains unproven allegations of coordination between Trump's advisers and Russians on hacking the emails of prominent Democrats" AP
 * 10) "The dossier is a compendium of unsubstantiated allegations of questionable real estate deals, secret coordination with Russian operatives who hacked Democratic targets during the election ... No evidence has surfaced so far that Trump aides or campaign advisers were involved in Russian efforts to disrupt the 2016 election" The New York Times
 * 11) "35-page 'dossier' alleging Russia has been 'cultivating, supporting and assisting' Trump for at least five years and fed his campaign 'valuable intelligence' on Clinton. The major allegations in the dossier ... remain unsubstantiated" Bloomberg
 * [emphasis mine] Note that these excerpts are specifically about the collusion allegations rather than comments about the ("unverified", "unsubstantiated", etc.) dossier as a whole. I have, for example, omitted sources which generally say that allegations about Trump's ties to Russia are unsubstantiated. Strongly oppose 2 as the juxtaposition would improperly imply that some allegations of collusion have been corroborated – and we already have the third paragraph which goes into more detail about what has been corroborated. Politrukki (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Comment. Casprings recently attempted to change the lead to "partially verified accusations of misconduct and collusion" based on his own misunderstanding of what reliable sources state. Although RfCs are supposed to be neutrally written, Casprings's description of the "Oppose" position ("Keep unverified and do not include information in the lede that some of the information is independently verified") is non-neutral and again seems to conflate the allegations against Trump with the parts of the dossier that have been corroborated (unspecified conversations between foreign nationals, a Russian diplomat's role as an undercover spy, and at least some of the content on Carter Page). While I wouldn't fight too hard to retain the "unverified" adjective in the second sentence if editors consider it redundant, the lead already states that "In February, it was reported that some details related to conversations between foreign nationals had been independently corroborated, giving U.S. intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence in some aspects of the dossier as investigations continued."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There are both NPOV issues with the lede, and some stylistic issues. Yes, it is a "private intelligence dossier" but it is also opposition research commissioned by political adversaries via a skeezy political outfit. The first sentence, apart from the term "unverified" puts the dossier in the most respectable light possible. The details of its release don't belong in the first paragraph, and arguably not in the lede at all. The prior opposition research by the Free Beacon - which did not include the dossier - is peripheral information and doesn't belong in the lede. We need to be wary of the lede reflecting the narrative of one side of a very divisive and partisan issue. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I support removing the word "unverified," as do you, but I think it was improper for you to remove the word from the lede while this RfC is going on. I am going to restore it until consensus is clear. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been open for a week. Discussion has died down (the last comment was 3 days ago), and the option "support 1, oppose 2" has 8 supporters while "oppose both" has 4. IMO it's too early to do a final close of this RfC, but I think that trend is sufficiently strong to remove "unverified" for now, pending further discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment While this is hardly a hill to die on, I don't think removing "unverified" has generated a consensus. While what constitutes consensus can vary, there are a number of editors (quite apart from myself) who have given reasonable arguments, and I don't believe any minds have been changed. I don't think this merits changing the status quo. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree we don't have a final consensus. RfC's generally are allowed to run for several weeks. My change is temporary until we do get an official closure. However, the trend seemed strong enough (and is even stronger after today's comments) to make the change in the interim. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added my voice in support of BOTH, per Carter Page's testimony. That changes everything. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Added mine in opposition of BOTH per a deeper look into the spin, all the anonymous sources that are providing the "so-called dirt" and to this day, there is nothing brought against Trump. All verifiable factual data predates the Trump campaign. It is time to be patient and not allow allegations to be stated in WikiVoice as fact. Atsme 📞📧 17:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Still inadmissible arguments as you're just stating your real world POV to right great wrongs. We use what RS say. We attribute what needs to be attributed, and we do state them. We don't leave them out because you don't like them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:WL as it contains some relevant similarities to your fruitless argument. I've already pointed out to you above the relevant PAGs that may serve as positive reminders for you. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 14:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have seen you make this argument twice now: If there was anything substantial in that dossier about Trump, he would have been indicted by now and to this day, there is nothing brought against Trump. That argument is worthless; it proves nothing. The way these special counsels, and federal prosecutors in general, work is that they patiently develop their case, commonly for years, before bringing charges. Look at Manafort: the FBI has been looking at those money laundering charges for years, and they told him months ago he was going to be indicted, before finally bringing the indictment. It is clear that Mueller is building his investigations in the usual way, starting with lower-level offenders, then using them to see if there is evidence against higher-ups. That's a slow and methodical process. BTW based on the Nixon precedent, I predict they will NEVER bring actual charges against Trump, regardless of what they find. At most they will describe him as an "unindicted co-conspirator" and leave it to Congress and the constitutional process of impeachment to deal with any crimes they discover. Bottom line, this article (and the dossier itself) do not accuse Trump of any crimes, so there is really no point in your arguing that he hasn't committed any. And the fact that he hasn't been charged doesn't prove a thing one way or the other. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased that you're reading my comments but then I've always believed you to be a good listener (reader). Now I'm asking you to please just read me out (that sounds weird). I realize few appreciate the points I've been making because as you've alluded to, there remains the belief that something more is going to happen over time, slowly, methodically, eventually climaxing with "evidence against higher-ups"; the perfect synopsis for a suspense thriller with a cliffhanger that forces readers to buy the sequel. Sorry, but this ole pragmatist is not buying into it - my motto is no expectations = no disappointments. While I agree the dossier is the MSM's central focus for the time being there is still so much unsupported speculation about it that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM are at play here. My other concerns follow:
 * WP:NOT per the section Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion specifically #1 - Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind re: the provided explanation for propaganda describes it as information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. While the policy says we can objectively report about such things, there must be an attempt made "to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Imbalance and undue do not a neutral article make. I don't deny that there have been times when my concerns over NPOV have been heard but there are more times they were not. I get it that the Steele dossier is all the buzz this month and that we have our differences regarding what is and isn't NPOV, so please forgive my occasional use of other presidential scandals to drive home my point.
 * NPOV issue: the name of this article vs a neutral name, such as Steele dossier. We certainly don't have an article titled Barrack Obama-Fast and Furious, or Bill Clinton and the blue dress. You called my argument worthless ouch! but ironically, the claims against it are based on arguments that are noncompliant with PAGs, specifically WP:NOT. SMirC-facepalm.svg Now scroll down to #3 in the same section - re: the part that states "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." From my perspective, unsupported allegations by anonymous sources combined with heavily weighted negative statements hand-picked from biased RS while omitting the denials and other views is a form of attack that speaks volumes to our readers. The entire Content section is based on negative, unproven information. The Steele dossier should be a paragraph in the Fusion GPS article until there is substantial evidence produced to warrant otherwise.
 * The article is primarily cited to the NYTimes, CNN, WaPo, and numerous other sources that are unquestionably left of center...some further than others...some of which contributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. Regardless, the most balanced sources actually do present information that brings a level of neutrality to their own articles, most of which has been excluded from our WP article. I'm not saying we cannot cite biased sources, but we shouldn't be citing nothing but biased sources and picking out only the negativity when there actually are balanced aspects in the article that are being omitted in our article.
 * Another concern about so much of what's included in this article is addressed in WP:BALL which states: Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. #1 cautions (my bold): "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Your argument is based on a prediction that may take years to resolve, and you admit that "they will NEVER bring actual charges against Trump" which further strengthens my argument against the imbalance and negative weightiness of this article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a load of verbiage, none of which relates to the minor point I objected to - your claim that it is somehow significant that Trump has not been charged with anything! This is all FORUM stuff, requiring either a long response or none. I am going to go with none. I was already treading into FORUM territory when I objected to your argument and I think I will hat this whole digression. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , I told you brevity was not my friend. So on what forum does it belong? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A political discussion forum. Not Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Updated my view after Doc Page testimony. SPECIFICO  talk  01:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * are you referring to this? If so, what part made you decide to update? Was it his disclosure about the misuse of taxpayer dollars to supplement "the illicit activities of large private media organizations and their executives to deceive US Voters" or was it something else? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 14:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So this needs to be closed..looks like 1 has consensus while 2 doesn't. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Republicans never funded the dossier
You have added false information to the lede in this article. After I removed it, you restored it. You should not have done that since this article is covered by WP:Discretionary sanctions, which include a warning that you "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." The false information you added is that the dossier "was commissioned and initially funded by The Washington Free Beacon for fellow Republican adversaries of then-primaries candidate Donald Trump". That is not true. The Free Beacon stopped funding any research on Trump in May, and the dossier was commissioned in June. Please self-revert this claim. (I cannot revert it again, because the Discretionary Sanctions also prohibit reverting something more than once. But if you self-revert it you will no longer be in violation of the DS.) You can then discuss it here if you want. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I restored an earlier version. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the version you restored still contains the error about it being funded by the Washington Free Beacon. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All fixed now. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it is NOT all fixed now. As soon as 24 hours had passed, Al-Andalus re-inserted the information in slightly changed form. Now it does not say that the Free Beacon commissioned and funded the dossier, which was plainly false. Now it says The investigation into Trump was initiated by Republican-backed conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon during the Republican primaries., which is true but disingenuous: saying "the investigation into Trump" was initiated by them leaves a misleading impression that the "investigation" means the dossier. I think the lede should not mention the Republican funding or the Free Beacon at all, since it was peripheral to the subject of this article, namely, the dossier. The historical involvement of a Republican source is explained in the article text; it should not be in the lede because it is not a major part of the story. I am not going to remove the sentence again so as not to edit-war; instead I am seeking consensus about whether this sentence should or should not be included in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging other editors active on this page, for their opinions: --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading through the sources, it appears clear that the Washington Free Beacon initially funded research and that the DNC continued the funding after the Beacon dropped out. What I can’t nail down is when Steele became involved or if either the Beacon or the DNC knew of his involvement or the likely end product at the time he began work. What seems clear is that both the Beacon and the DNC were performing opposition research and that the dossier was at least part of the end product. As far as I can see, there is nothing illegal about creating this document and opposition research is common practice. So, I’m not sure that trying to pin down who knew what when matters that much. Clearly both the Rs and Ds expected something to come from the funding. If RS nail this down at some point, it would be worth including. Until then, the finger-pointing is a bit annoying. Seems all we can do is point out that funding for opposition research came from two sources, and the dossier was commissioned by Fusion. Just some random thoughts. I’d like to hear from others before having a solid opinion. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Objective, the timing is pretty clear. The Republicans stopped paying Fusion in May, and the counsel for the Dems took it over. The Russian hacking of the DNC was revealed in June. It was then - in June - that Fusion decided to do some Russia research and hired Steele. Since this article is specifically about the dossier - not the oppo research in general - then that timing matters. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. It’s likely that the dossier may have never been commissioned had the Beacon not originally hired Fusion. But, I suppose that’s happenstance and not worth mention in the lead. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree and have (partially) reverted. The lede should focus on the subject of the article Donald Trump–Russia dossier. We do not know whether the opposition research conducted by Fusion prior to the hiring of Steele influenced or was included in his dossier. Elaboration is appropriate for the body but not the lede.  James J. Lambden (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * MelanieN - I think the coverage WP:WEIGHT is generally about that DNC or Clinton paying for it. The website payment mentions is down at the level of FBI payment mentions, too minor for even a tail mention in the lead.  Seems often enough to deserve mention in the history.  But the early details sound like it may not been 'the dossier' but rather a background on all Republican nominees, and then Fusion remade and re-marketed an effort for a negative dossier.   For a feel of coverage, here are the top hits from misc British sites in general leftish to rightish order
 * BBC Clinton team and Democrats 'bankrolled' Trump dirty dossier
 * Guardian Report: Clinton campaign and DNC helped fund Trump-Russia Steele dossier
 * Mirror Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for research that led to Trump 'dirty dossier'
 * Independent (#2) Firm behind Trump-Russia dossier got initial funding from conservative website
 * Times Trump hits out over Clinton link to dossier funding
 * Telegraph (FBI was #3) Conservative website funded research that led to Donald Trump Russia dossier
 * Sun Hillary Clinton’s campaign ‘helped bankroll’ research for ‘golden showers’ dossier on Trump
 * Daily Express Donald Trump dossier accusing him of links to Russia 'was paid for by Hillary Clinton'
 * Daily Mail Hillary Clinton defends funding Steele dossier on Donald Trump
 * (Daily mail next) A YEAR of Clinton lies about the 'golden showers' dossier exposed as Hillary's lawyer is under fire for falsely denying paying for it
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with most commenters here: the timing is clear, Republican-funded opposition research predated the start of the dossier, and is therefore off-topic / UNDUE for the lead section. — JFG talk 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fully agree that this is barely relevant background information that deserves a mention in the body of the article, so long as there's no implication the previous opposition research informed the dossier. There isn't even any evidence afaik that Steele looked at the opposition research Fusion GPS had previously done on Trump, much less that it affected what he put together, much less that it was a significant influence. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus not to include anything about the Republican funding in the lede. Al-Andalus, please take note of this consensus and do not add it again. It would help if you would participate in these discussions, but in any case, do not violate consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the research that resulted in the document started here. Rather or not it predates it is not relavent, if this is the start of its development.Casprings (talk)|

Sources that show funding originated from GOP backed groups:


 * Newsweek: Website With GOP Ties Funded Research on Trump Dossier
 * New York Times: Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier
 * Britbart: Anti-Trump Dossier Original Funder Paul Singer an Open Borders Establishment Republican Billionaire

This is a wide range of sources that show the same thing. This should certainly be in the lede. If the research that was foundational to the document started with Conservative media, that fact should not be hidden in the article and it should be included in the lede.Casprings (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Casprings that’s too low WP:WEIGHT for lead, and note all 3 say they got a general internet survey — not Mr. Steele, nothing that was in or led to the dossier. These cites say they did not fund the dossier.  Markbassett (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "that’s too low WP:WEIGHT for lead" - but trying to push the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun, as you tried to do above, is legit for establishing due weight?  Volunteer Marek   05:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I second Casprings’ argument. All sources of good repute, both from liberal and conservative media (even extreme right wing Breitbart), concede that research that was foundational to the dossier started with Republican-backed conservative media. Had it not been for that fact (i.e. some segments of the conservative camp dislike of Trump) the dossier would not even exist because of an interruption in the sequence of events to the coming into being of the dossier. Everyone had a hand in why the dossier came into existance; Republicans, Democrats, and an independent party. That fact is being hidden in the article by those who want to make it seem that 1) the funding of the dossier was somehow illegal, and 2) those responsible for funding it were Democrats, and that therefore 3) Democrats did something illegal. This is a fictitious point of view that one side is trying to paint. If funding of the dossier is going to be included in the lead at all, when It is entirely irrelevant who actually funded the dossier in any case (because there was nothing illegal about it in any event, and therefore that fact is not noteworthy), then it must be stressed that everyone had their hands in the pie. Or it should not be included at all. if it had been entirely the Democrats that were behind the funding of the dossier (which is not true) and if had it been the Democrats that started the sequence of events that led to the dossier’s creation (also not true), then that perhaps would be noteworthy even if not it was not illegal per se. However, that was not the sequence of events as per the facts themselves. It’s disingenuous to mention the Democrats in the lead, when they were merely the intermediate step in the sequence of events. There was a step before the Democrats (ie republicans) and a step after the Democrats (ie Fusion GPS themselves). Al-Andalus (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is implying there was something illegal about the dossier. It was part of opposition research, which is legal and all candidates do it. The time sequence is what matters here. Some Republicans were doing opposition research on Trump during the primary, but they stopped doing it long before Russia became an issue or a subject to be researched. Questions about Russia arose on June 14, 2016, when it was revealed that (to quote the Washington Post) Russian government hackers penetrated the DNC. That's what gave Fusion the idea to investigate whether there was something going on with the Russians. That was a new idea; previous research had primarily focused on his business activities, and probably on attempts to find out if there had been any sexual hanky-panky or other embarrassing material that could be exposed. Russia was a new angle. So Fusion hired a Russia specialist, who focused his investigation on "has there been contact between Russian and the Trump campaign?" as well as "Do the Russians have something on Trump, have they compromised him?" That's the subject of this article - Steele's research and Steele's report. The fact that some other group had previously hired the same firm to do oppo research - but was long gone when Steele was hired - has no connection with this dossier. At least not enough of a connection to put in the lede. The previous Republican funding is clearly explained in the article text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea that the Republican funding was separate from the dossier is a recently clarified point, not understood until the last couple weeks. Now that we're getting the two phases of opposition research separated, the Republican part should still be included, but only as the historical precursor to what later led to the creation of the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source which explicitly says that the Republican funding was separate from the dossier? From what I've read, while Steele came on board later, without the initial Republican funding there never would've been a dossier. So no, not separate.  Volunteer Marek   05:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's speculation. The Clinton campaign was obviously going to do opposition research on Trump. If they hadn't hired Fusion GPS, they would have hired someone else. And that someone else would probably also have decided "we need to look for Russia-connected material" after the Russian hacking was revealed in June. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I still need a source for the current interpretation.  Volunteer Marek   16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - WaPo clearly states that before the agreement with Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary. It was after that, when Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele. The article begins with "The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier." <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And here's another one that's easier to read: Time quotes the Washington Free Beacon who funded the first bit of research on Trump: “The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.” <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The Republican funding (we now know the funder) was a precursor, part of the history of anti-Trump opposition research, but the dossier followed it. It was all done through Fusion GPS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did the WFB hire Fusion GPS?  Volunteer Marek   16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we already have it included here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And the smell of bacon at Waffle House made me decide to order a BLT; therefore, according to your analogy, the precurser to my decision was the customer who ordered bacon before I arrived not the fact that Waffle House keeps bacon on hand because that's part of their business and I was hungry. There has to be a precurser...hmmm...the precurser could also be the pig, or the farmer who raised the pig, or the grocery store that sold me the bacon...and that sums up the strength of your argument. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 15:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure of your point, but mine was in agreement with yours; they were two phases of oppo research, and not connected by donors or investigators, only by Fusion GPS. No need to be defensive. We agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Must be Ptsd from editing political articles, my apologies BullRangifer. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reputation in the Intelligence Community
This section has major NPOV problems. I haven't time at the moment, but we are missing quotations from Comey ("salacious and unverified) and Mike Morrell and James Clapper ("The [Intelligence Community] has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.") These are all far more significant figures than the analysts currently quoted. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Morrell is already quoted in the "Veracity" section. Note that one of Morrell's objections—that Steele paid his sources—is rather weak; it's normal for spies to pay their sources, and we should actually be more wary of the unsolicited information freely offered up to Steele in December 2016 (after both the election and David Corn's October 31 Mother Jones report discussing the dossier).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Casprings just nuked the whole section. User:PackMecEng restored it. Discussion time, folks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Gabrielthursday, you seem to be proposing that we should use old and outdated views based on lack of information instead of much newer and better views based on the fact that most of the dossier's claims have been verified. You should also read the dossier. The "salacious" golden showers part is on the first page. That's it. The sensational press reports have given undue weight to that, and ignored the rest of the much more serious content. We should not make that undue weight error here. It's quite inaccurate to label the whole thing as "salacious" when it's not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What are RS NOW saying about this, what indeed do Comey and |Co now say?Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions
Within the span of a few days, the sentence "It is unknown the extent to which the allegations in the dossier have formed a part of the ongoing 2017 Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." becomes the sentence "At least part of the dossier has formed a part of the ongoing 2017 Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and a team of Special Council investigators has met with the dossier’s author, Christopher Steele." I find it incredible that something that is unknown becomes known in the course of a few days. Does interviewing Steele somehow count as integrating the dossier into the investigation? Is there something here I'm missing? FallingGravity 22:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * it is known that the dossier has formed a part of the investigations. What is unknown is the extent. What is difficult to understand about that? We know the earth is covered by water. What we don’t know is how many litres exactly. Just because we don’t know the exact amount doesn’t mean we shouldn’t mention the earth is covered with water. Some water-haters might want to pretend it’s actually liquid mercury. Al-Andalus (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply looking at cited source, it tells: The FBI has confirmed some parts of the dossier and Special counsel Robert Mueller is looking into other details as part of an investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. So, I do not see any problems with both versions which are not mutually exclusive. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If anything, Republican spinsters in the media over the last day have made it a talking point to paint the fact that the dossier has been included as any part of Mueller’s investigation as somehow being a wrongful act on muellers part. Yet here we have people trying to omit the fact that the dossier has formed a part of mueller’s investigation at all. Meanwhile, legal experts say that if mueller hadn’t or insnt including the leads in the dossier in his investigation he would be derelict in his duty. Which is it? Al-Andalus (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You created duplicate content; FallingGravity removed it in both places . I think the dossier being used by Mueller certainly worth mentioning and well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it could belong in the article, but it's already mentioned in the lead: "giving U.S. intelligence and law enforcement greater confidence in some aspects of the dossier as investigations continued." Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Adding an additional paragraph musing on how it's unknown how much the dossier factored into the investigation or the extent of the dossier played is unnecessary; maybe an additional sentence would do. I have no objection to restoring the paragraph to a different location, but I think somebody with more time should have a look at it and its sourcing. FallingGravity 04:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I reincluded this as separate section. Welcome to fix if needed. There was also something about Mueller going interrogate a bodyguard of D. Trump about the "most salacious" claims in the dossier. My very best wishes (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Corroborated"
This edit summary (diff) suggests dossier claims were corroborated by Page's testimony. I assume this refers to the Sechin meeting from the (poor) Business Insider source. But CNN's take is different: "During his sworn testimony, Page denied a key claim from the infamous dossier but acknowledged talking to a high-ranking official from the Russian energy giant Rosneft.", "No public evidence has emerged to corroborate this specific claim in the dossier." Thoughts? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's based on several sources provided in the article. And it isn't limited to the Sechin meeting. Sources refer to key parts of his testimony as "corroboration". Now, can you self-revert and undo your 1RR violation?  Volunteer Marek   06:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which sources and which parts? Be specific. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to Business Insider, we also have Newsweek (which you removed as a source - violating Wikipedia policy) ("his comments also appear to corroborate sections of the controversial document and raise new questions over his meetings in Russia.")


 * Oh, and here's our man Chuck Ross in the Daily Caller. Not a reliable source but worth quoting for illustrative purposes:
 * "Some of what former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page disclosed in testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last week matches up loosely with allegations made in the infamous Steele dossier"
 * "Page’s statements about a trip he made to Moscow in July 2016 included details that are laid out in the dirty document"
 * "Steele’s document did nail down something that Page revealed for the first time in his House testimony"
 * "Page revealed some new details about his Moscow visit that resemble other allegations in Steele’s report"
 * "While there is still no evidence to support the allegations made about Page in those two memos, parts of two other Steele reports ring true."
 *  Volunteer Marek  07:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Volunteer Marek - I'm just not seeing 'corroborated' as a valid paraphrase from these phrases 'some...loosely', 'dirty document', 'resemble other', 'no evidence to support'. The English is good at least, but the lines seem to be exaggerating Vanity Fair and really something 'corroborating' would be mentioned and pull more from other, larger, and better sources.  Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe cuz you're squinting really hard not to see it. "matches up". "details that are laid out in". "nailed down". "resemble other allegations". Etc. You're trying to set a standard which is ridiculously high.  Volunteer Marek   14:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted the following link above in the iVote section in response to another comment (having now provided 3 articles that provide an opposing view to the current claims) but since the corroboration angle is still lit up down here, I think we need to clarify some of the misinformation and innuendos so it doesn't spread any more than it already has - at least we will have some balance to this POV-ridden, improperly named article. See Top 10 things to know about dossier by Mollie Hemingway.<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 15:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just picking out random stuff that make me question the analysis from link there that talks more about how the dossier is garbage (which is what we're talking more about, from the same author)(feel free to hat i guess): Clinton and other opponents for “several years,” a bizarre thing for the Kremlin to do with someone who only announced his candidacy in June 2015. Trump had ran multiple times for many years; it's not unreasonable for him to run, and trump could've told the kremlin he was going to run..In what way would learning about his infidelities or indiscretions be a blackmailing situation? Surely those outlandish claims would be on another level, enough for blackmailing The only problem was that Cohen had never been to Prague and Kosachev said he hadn’t been there in five years. Are we trusting their words? Galobtter (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that you keep referring to garbage sources like the Federalist to back up your outlandish claims is not exactly helping your argument here.  Volunteer Marek   20:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But an op-ed piece in the Concord Monitor is just fine, right? 😂 Mollie Hemingway authored that piece in the Federalist, so be careful about your comments per BLP. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree to cut that out. Seems undue weight of a minor opinion piece. Galobtter (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * VM - if the picked lines have a mixed message, then the summary isn’t simply ‘corroborated’ for them. And I think if the events were a strong support, then big coverage would have said so. Squinting any way I can, most I get is a partial or maybe supportive, but not ‘corroberate’. Markbassett (talk) 03:25, November 12, 2017‎ (UTC)

1RR and DS violation by Lambden
User:James J. Lambden violated 1RR as well as that restriction on consensus changes on this article;


 * First revert
 * Second revert

Additionally, that second revert restores changes were made by consensus.

Since I expect there's gonna be some deflecting coming soon (Lambden has a tendency to accuse others of what he's guilty of himself) let me address my edit. In particular my adding of the "corroborated" to the lede. The addition of that word was based on new information - Carter Page's testimony on November 2nd - and new sources (Newsweek in lede, several other sources in the text). As such it's not a revert since it is based on new developments which have not been previously covered. Regardless, Lambden's reverts cover not just the use of that word in the lede but other changes to the article as well.  Volunteer Marek  06:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This violation of DS by Lambden, is also in addition to removal of well sourced information for... basically no reason what so ever. Except of course POV and IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. That in itself constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, discretionary sanctions or no discretionary sanctions.  Volunteer Marek  07:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1RR and Consensus Required DS violation by Volunteer Marek
In his recent series of edits VM violated 1RR and Consensus Required on this text:
 * Version reverted to:
 * VM's 1st revert:
 * VM's 2nd revert:

and Consensus required here with respect to the Business Insider paragraph:
 * VM's addition:
 * My removal:
 * VM's restoration without consensus:

The edit VM complains about is the one in which I reverted his multiple DS violations. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you please stop mimicking my comments? It's an obvious taunt and a form of WP:HARASSMENT. And like I predicted above - you're trying to use the "I'm going to accuse you of what I'm guilty of myself" tactic as a way of deflecting attention from your own disruptive behavior.  Volunteer Marek   07:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Notification of DS violations are not mimicry although they are inappropriate for an article talk page in my opinion. Can we agree to remove them? James J. Lambden (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You formatted and wrote your "notification" to exactly resemble mine. It's mimicry designed to provoke and taunt.  Volunteer Marek   07:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No editor who writes this gets to complain about hurt feelings. Hat please. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't hurt my feelings. You are however trying to WP:HARASS me, just like you have tried to harass several other editors (User:Snooganssnoogans, User:NorthBySouthBaranoff, User:SPECIFICO and a few others whom you've deemed to be "politically inappropriate" in your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing Wikipedia). This kind of behavior short circuits collaborative efforts and makes it difficult to improve the encyclopedia. Hence, it is disruptive (and yes, it's also obnoxious and creepy). You have also been repeatedly asked to not comment on my talk page - leaving a notification, even if completely bad faithed, is one thing, but making taunts with full knowledge that you are not welcome there is also incivil and abusive behavior.  Volunteer Marek   07:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek's DS violation is clear and straightforward, and his aspersions against James J. Lambden are beyond the pale. (In addition, the canvassing above is questionable at best.) Volunteer Marek was just let off the hook for another clear-cut DS violation in October because—while all parties acknowledged the violation—no admin was actually willing to sanction Volunteer Marek. I did not comment in that particular case because I generally agreed with Volunteer Marek's edits and because I strongly believe that the "consensus required" DS should be rescinded from most articles; however, any honest observer can see that countless editors have been topic banned for a fraction of what Volunteer Marek alone is routinely allowed to get away with. Have we all just accepted that Volunteer Marek is above the law?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh nonsense. I expected better from you.  Volunteer Marek   17:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Carter Page testimony
I am looking at the edit, and it seems that the info was important and well sourced. Obviously, it should be included on the page. Any objections? My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not if you're using SYNTH to draw the conclusion in the 2nd paragraph. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that 2nd paragraph was removed in the latest series of edits, and it was not restored by VM . Personally, I do not know if that was WP:SYN, I did not follow this story very closely. However, the removal of phrase in the lead ("some, but not all, of which have been independently corroborated") seem to be wrong. One does not even need a ref in the lead. I think this is simply a matter of fact that some claims have been corroborated. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose restoring some of the material such as Rosneft allegations as long as we say that they are unverified allegations.
 * The lead changes you propose are not fine. It is WP:SYNTH. Just because some details in the dossier have been corroborated does not mean that any allegations of misconduct or collusion have been proved.
 * The last sentence of current testimony section ("In October 2016, after being informed of his trip by Page...") seems irrelevant as Page said, and it has been corroborated, that Sessions did not react to Page's words. Politrukki (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And strike or rework or drop the first para line about testimony confirmed parts of the dossier.  Generally he was denigrating the report, not literally confirming ot. Markbassett (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * More importantly, I'm glad this happened. "Unverified" really had to go in any case. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Article title and bias of sources

 * Agree, Markbassett and Prinsgezinde. Would like your thoughts about the name of this article since the title is POV-laden and has caused a bit of confusion over the initial contracting of Fusion GPS to do opposition research on other candidates for The Washington Free Beacon. As evidenced in this Snopes article the dossier was nicknamed the Steele dossier. Other acceptable names to satisfy NPOV include Trump dossier or Steele dossier on Trump.
 * Furthermore, the attention should be on the various investigations the dossier has triggered and actually resulted in evidence that support the allegations being made. We now know that Fusion GPS executives are being uncooperative with the investigation and have pleaded the 5th; the Clinton campaign funded part of the Steele dossier, there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton, and the FBI also funded part of that dossier. There is little to no information in the article that provides factual evidence about Trump, only allegations, which is what this article focuses on, creating POV, weight and imbalance issues. RS have referred to the Steele dossier "as demonstrably false" and provides a list. According to The Federalist, the dossier was used as the reason the FBI spied on American citizens. We've learned that the Clinton campaign could face "hefty fines" for their part in it. There are numerous other articles that provide information we can cite to get this article in compliance with NPOV (balance & weight), including evidence based facts, not just allegations, but for some reason those facts are getting lost in the interpretation. Time, Politico, WaPo, <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Furthermore, the attention should be on the various investigations the dossier has triggered and actually resulted in evidence" - Uh, what?
 * "there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton" - uh, what???
 * " the FBI also funded part of that dossier" - uh, what?????
 * Wikipedia is not a fake news website. I'm really starting to doubt if you should be even editing this article.
 * (the Federalist is nowhere close to being a reliable source so who cares what they called the dossier. Also most of the other claims in your comment are nonsense as well.)  Volunteer Marek   16:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I've gleaned from experience, the prevailing POV here and on all other Trump related articles is that no center or right leaning source is a RS. The double standard is suffocating. Anyway, I disagree but choose not to debate it. There actually are other sources that are as reliable (if not more so) than WaPo and the NYTimes, they just publish the information from a different perspective. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You have also gleaned incorrectly. Center or right leaning sources are perfectly fine. But the DailyCaller and TheFederalist are still unreliable. Not because of their politics. But because they're junk. They hire white supremacists and racists and/or they publish fake news. Actually that Federalist piece you linked is a good example as its chuck full of outright falsehoods. Given that right above you've managed to make a laundry list of wacky conspiracy theories I'm not surprised that you'd want these sources to be considered reliable. But they're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 20:05, November 10, 2017 (UTC)
 * , interesting. May I ask what "center" sources are deemed not to be reliable, and separately, what "right leaning" sources are not deemed to be reliable, on Trump related articles? I'm a bit skeptical that such a double standard actually exists.- MrX 19:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * MrX, save us both some time, and review the article References and make us a list of the center and right of center sources you see and how often such sources were cited vs center left all the way to progressive left. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, we should not be thinking in terms of opinions and POV's -- we should be evaluating the editorial integrity and rigor of mooted sources. This POV stuff is not helpful and it's not what policy tells us to do around here.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a discussion based on my observations which I am as much entitled to express as anyone else here. You can disagree; however, I'm growing weary of my comments being hatted, muted, and criticized at almost every turn. A TP is for addressing issues editors have found in the article, and as a veteran editor, I happen to know what is and isn't compliant with our PAGs. Those who do not wish to engage in civil discourse regarding the issues I've mentioned, then you can simply quietly observe. That is how TP discussions work to resolve problems, not by attempting to silence an editor for bringing them up. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully Atsme, I'm not going to "save us both some time" by spending my considerable time proving or disproving your assertion. You made the outlandish claim. Either substantiate it, or expect such comments to be treated with the disdain they deserve.- MrX 21:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue when all anyone has to do is read the References cited to what was added, compare it to what was excluded, and how it was worded in the article. Quick example: #60 is an op-ed from a local news source. BuzzFeed is cited in the lead, and they were sued over the dossier. The following sources were cited multiple times: NYTimes - WaPo - Politico - The Atlantic and CNN who is known for not getting the story right as we can see in this article. There's the AZCentral (part of USA Today), NBC, ABC, Vanity Fair, NY Daily News, AOL, Business Insider, and I can go on and on. Where are all the center and center-right sources? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Center sources BBC and The Independent are cited three times each. Right leaning Fox News is cited twice. Right-leaning The Telegraph is cited four times. Right-leaning Wall Street Journal and The Times are cited once each. Of course, you're also free to edit the article with any center and right-leaning reliable sources that you can find. Your original claim was "... the prevailing POV here and on all other Trump related articles is that no center or right leaning source is a RS.".But you have provided no evidence of that, and I have just provided evidence that refutes it. You can't just make things up and expect to be taken seriously.- MrX 22:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BBC is left of center SMirC-thumbsdown.svg - see the sources cited in our own WP article Criticism of the BBC; See this site which provides a balance and makes a pretty decent call when an article hits center, left or right. On average, the following is closer to accurate: Fox News2 leans right ✅; The Independent3 leans right ✅; The Telegraph4 leans right ✅; WSJ1 - center left; The Times1 - center left. Review the statements that are actually cited to those sources. We're talking about a 44kb article with 3980 words of readable prose. I'll wait for all the "breaking news" to die down before I attempt to make any edits. My eye is trained to see articles more from a copyedit/GA/FA reviewer perspective so I'll wait for all the breaking news to subside, and the facts to be substantiated before I attempt to make any edits here. Have a great weekend!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, WSJ "center left"? Seriously? The Times "center left"? Lol. What the hell is that allsides website anyway? Best I can tell it's user generated content. Sorry, no.  Volunteer Marek   06:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet another one that doesn't agree with you, VM? Rhetorical, no need to respond. It's all good. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, you're trying to push some user-generated content website as authoritative on what "bias" particular sources have. This is silly. It's not how Wikipedia works. I don't know why we're even discussing it.  Volunteer Marek   21:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * VM, read the U of M link in my response below this one. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All of this is completely irrelevant, and as has already been pointed out to you, the PRC chart does NOT actually show what you think or claim or claim and think it shows.  Volunteer Marek   01:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Time - it's really obvious; U of M, but read the commentary; Forbes has an interesting view; as for FOX News & WSJ, you might want to get caught up a bit. Happy editing! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, those are nonsense. e.g. "Forbes" is from their blogger section, written by a non-notable pundit. I do agree with you Hannity has sold out to the Left, but one example doesn't clinch the deal. SPECIFICO  talk  21:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 😂 good'un, SPECIFICO. So if you're not happy with Forbes, don't focus on it - read the others - unless you don't like the University of Michigan, Pew Research, Media Bias, and the NYTimes. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes Accuracy_in_Media also mediabiasfactcheck on it (extreme right, mixed factual reporting). Here's a quote from the article: In short, she is a globalist insider who sees the green hysteria as a viable way to control people and their lifestyles.

We warned back in 2007 in our column, “Rupert Murdoch Picks Liberal Son as Successor,” that James Murdoch was maneuvering to take control of Fox News. We also noted that James Murdoch “buys into global warming hysteria,” and that his liberal philosophy on environmental and other matters “could become the party line” of the Fox News Channel. Really picking out the best sources. If saying climate change is real is pushing the leftist agenda or whatever...............Also why don't you stick to one site e.g mediabiasfackcheck (which I'm fine with) and use that. WSJ is listed as right of center there and The Independant as left of center, which seems right to me, as I see clickbait anti-trump headlines from the independant. Galobtter (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't think picking on the few center right sources cited in the article will resolve the NPOV issues and the fact that not all significant views in all the sources have been presented according to WP:BALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOT. The fact that the Steele dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the allegations originate from anonymous sources/Russian spies is what speaks volumes. The title of the article is POV, the Contents section is undue, and I can go on and on. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All sources have bias. What's most important is factual accuracy. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ also mentions "factual accuracy" for each source, so notice that. That most RS used here are center to center-left is because of an interesting phenomenon, and it makes a lot of sense. These two articles explain it: On the Liberal Bias of Facts and The Facts Have a Well-Known Center-Left Bias. IOW, facts and knowledge have become identified more with the left-wing than the right-wing, as explained below, all based on RS, not opinions. (Note my liberal use of the words "tend to" below. )
 * The cause and effect is that left-wingers are generally better informed, largely because they tend to gather their news from multiple sources across the left-center-right spectra, unlike right-wingers, who tend to use fewer sources, most from the right and extreme right; left-wingers tend to use fact-checkers more, and during the election campaign they were much less likely to be fooled by fake news (as attested by the creators of that "news". They gave up on targeting the left and focused on GOP and Trump supporters.); left-wingers tend to be better educated; most scientists [therefore] vote Democrat and are atheists; right-wingers tend to distrust, denigrate, and hate fact checking websites, even to the point that Trump told his followers not to trust them. That way he could deceive them with his alternative facts and keep them from learning the real facts.
 * It's perfectly fine to use biased sources without it affecting NPOV at all, since NPOV doesn't relate so much to content as to avoiding biased editorial behavior. Editors must present content with the biases found in the sources, without editorially censoring them or whitewashing them. If a right- or left-wing source is factually accurate, then it's a potential source here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was actually criticizing the source you used in your comment, not in the article. Also WP:BALANCE says and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.. If all prominent reliable sources are "left-wing"....(then again if "left wing" means believing in climate change then any source that very reliable has to be "left wing") The main thing is to get the opinions based on the prominence of the viewpoints. What sources are used for the facts shouldn't matter. Galobtter (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:Atsme please read and familiarize yourself with WP: Competence is required, a very important policy you may have missed. If you think using Trump's name in the title is "POV-laden," and that "we now know there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton(!!!!!!)", editing political articles isn't for you. This is not a place to spew obvious nonsense. Infamia (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Article title
Atsme, I tend to support the idea of a title change to Steele dossier. Also, the content section needs expansion so it's complete. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Steele dossier" seems good to me. SPECIFICO talk  03:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. That makes 3 supporting it. The most common name is the Steele dossier. I'm ok with however you want to present it for local consensus or whatever else you think is best. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also support Steele dossier; I don't see any discussion of a proposal similar to this in the archives and the name is used by the press, for example at, , . This one  says Trump-Russia Steele dossier, which is too wordy. Fox uses  "Fusion GPS dossier", which I feel is less clear. power~enwiki ( π ,  ν ) 03:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WaPo's Conclusion at the bottom of the article calls it the Steele dossier - and their conclusion is as near to NPOV accurate as I've seen. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me too. As far as I can see, it is the most common name when the dossier is given a name (and not simply referred to as the infamous dossier). nytimes too Galobtter (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment 1. I request that this go through a move request. 2. I think there is bemifit to the reader in having Russia and trump in the title for the reader to find the article.Casprings (talk)
 * I think in a google search it still will come up at the top so I don't know how much of a benefit. At the very least I think it should be "Trump-Russia dossier" which is what is sometimes used and is shorter. Galobtter (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Due to the way our redirects function, we can use all combinations of titles as redirects, and the actual article will always be found. Google will quickly settle on the real article because it will be content rich, using all the key words in abundance. That will then be found at the top of searches. Many of the most RS, such as The New York Times, refer to it as the Steele dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. While the majority of participants were in favour of some sort of move, there was clearly a consensus against the proposed title and no clear agreement about any of the alternatives offered. No prejudice against a future discussion on one of the other possible titles. Jenks24 (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump–Russia dossier → Steele dossier – The term Steele dossier is widely used by the news media, and more unambiguously refers to the specific topic that the article is about. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per my above comment. Galobtter (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Striking, see below, not sure if actually common name. Also steele dossier isn't exactly the clearest name unless you know who the dossier author is. Trump-Russia Dossier seems the best to me. Galobtter (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments above. Many very RS use this title, and other combinations can be used as redirects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not an unambiguously clear choice, so I withdraw my support. The current title is descriptive, but a simplification to Trump–Russia dossier would be nice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose less recognizable, is there another Donald Trump Russia dossier out there? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely how media describes this now.-- Netoholic @ 11:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, as most sources call it the "Steele dossier". — JFG talk 11:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do most sources call it the "Steele dossier"? Compare hits: "Trump dossier" at 164,000, "Russia dossier" at 45,900, and "Steele dossier" at 39,300.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see most sources when giving it a name give the name as Steele dossier. Others simply say "the dossier" and don't give it a name. Galobtter (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence? That appears to be contradicted by the above links, which would suggest avoiding an uncommon neologism.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh that wasn't how I remember it was when I did the search before. "Trump-Russia dossier" could be an alternative that is at least not such an unwieldy name. Galobtter (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Among the many terms that refer to the Dossier in the media, "Steele dossier" is one of the least common (see above).  "Donald Trump-Russia dossier" is clear and unambiguous, both the terms "Trump dossier" and "Russia dossier" appear widely in the media.  Yet neither of these is a good title for an article (see earlier RfC).  I also think, for the same reason as my opposition to "Trump dossier", that "Steele dossier" is not a good article title.  No one who is not already familiar with the subject of the article has any idea what a "Steele dossier" is, and likely to mistake it for fancy designer briefcase.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Common name, for a while now that it has been getting more scrutiny that is what RS have been referring to it as. PackMecEng (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Steele dossier is the widely known name which explains the redirect to the current POV name. The correct way to do it is move it to Steele dossier and create a Trump dossier redirect and remove the POV name all together because it implies there is a connection between Trump & Russia when, to date, no collusion has been proven. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 14:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * GQ ”For one thing, it seems to confirm that the ‘’’Steele dossier’’’ is being investigated thoroughly…”
 * Vanity Fair “THE DIRTY TRUTH ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER”
 * NYTimes ”The so-called Steele dossier of research into President Trump’s connections to Russia…”
 * CNN ”US intelligence community last year took the Steele dossier more seriously”
 * Salon ”…central role played by the "Steele dossier," … 14:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The dossier talks about trump and russia -> donald trump - russia dossier. That title does not say anything about whether the ties are true. All it says is that there is a dossier about trump and russia. No need to delete it. Galobtter (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's implied; therefore, not neutral. Per a comment by MelanieN on my TP which helped me to see things from a much broader perspective regarding NPOV: "About your RfC: You were prevented by WP:Neutrality from putting your argument ("if the president says something, that means it isn't classified") into the questions themselves." I believe that naming an article using a president's name in connection would fall in that same line of thinking. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 17:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The current name is POV? is this a joke? I'm legitimately asking. Can you possibly be serious here? Using Trump's name on a dossier about him is POV? That's seriously your view?Infamia (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME.- MrX 18:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow up comment Actually, why not just Trump dossier? Trump dossier seems to have the most hits on google by a factor of 4-1 vs. either Steele dossier or Trump-Russia dossier. Also commonly used, as here: Also, contra the unusual beliefs suggested above, none of these names are "POV".Infamia (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock


 * Trump dossier is not specific enough - people can't be sure what it is about. Galobtter (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above user has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, most likely it's Kingshowman. Sky  Warrior  16:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is less descriptive and less recognizable name. However, it could be renamed to Trump dossier per WP:COMMONNAME. That is common name - see results of Google search . My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose See my above comments. Agree w/ My very best wishes. Trump-Russia dossier or Trump dossier are good. The former is more descriptive and clearer so I prefer that. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 15:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose No evidence provided that Steele Dossier is the common name. According to Google Trends, Trump dossier is the common one - . If there is a need to change the article title to another, it would be to Trump dossier, although it could be argued that Donald Trump–Russia dossier is close to Trump dossier and more specific and therefore may stay. Hzh (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MVBW. Support rename to Trump Dossier.Casprings (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't say there is no evidence provided - I provided 5 major MSM sources above and there are many more. Trump dossier would work as a title if Trump authored it but Steele authored it. Just yesterday, the headline in WSJ for Kim Strassel's article reads: Fusion GPS 'Steele Dossier' A Political Dirty Trick For The Ages. Steele dossier is widely known - it's the redirect now to this article because nobody knows how to find it under the current name. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence presented that it is the common name - that means you have to show the most sources used that name, not simply some sources used that name. The evidence I provided shows that Trump dossier is the common name, not Steele dossier (the most recent peak for the week of October 22-28 gives 60 for "Trump dossier", 9 for "Steele dossier", 1 for "Donald Trump-Russia dossier") Perhaps it may change in the future since Google Trends shows that preferences can change over time, but for now there is no evidence that Steele dossier is the common name. You can always propose changing it if thing changes in the future. Hzh (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, stats for redirects tell a story: Steele dossier=1,006 pageviews whereas Trump dossier=983 pageviews. Not a giant difference, but now that more news sources are saying Steele dossier, the spread will increase. Name it Steele dossier and keep the redirect for Trump dossier. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Common name does not refer to Wikipedia page view, page view is not used for determining common name as set out in WP:COMMONNAME or in search engine test per WP:SET. As already shown Google Trends gives Trump dossier as the common-used name. Checking it Google News, "Trump dossier" gives 144,000 hits, while "Steele Dossier" gives only 26,200 hits. Hzh (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's good to know, but it's not a convincing argument. The Google hits count didn't do a thing for WP because the Steele dossier still got more page views. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 02:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not for you to declare by yourself here that what is recommended according to Wikipedia policy is something unconvincing. Wikipedia policy and guideline are the only basis on which we can discuss this, if you want to challenge any policy or guideline, then by all means do it in their talk pages, not here. In any case, given that Donald Trump–Russia dossier gives pageviews of 306,804 over 90 days -, attempting to claim that there is something significant about 1,006 pageviews for Steele dossier and 983 pageviews for Trump dossier is odd. It seems that you think someone searching for Steele dossier on Google will go to the redirect page, that is not true (it gives a link for Donald Trump–Russia dossier).  Pageview of redirects here only reflects how webpages are used by a small subset of Wikipedia users, for example, which wikilink they used, or perhaps a wikipedia user may be more familiar with Trump dossier but did not know what a Steele dossier is, therefore would search for it rather than Trump dossier. Pageview of redirect therefore may not reflect the usage of the general population or the media, and irrelevant when determining which is the common name. Hzh (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:IAR. I really don't care which name this RfC determines to be the best - Steele dossier or Trump dossier - but having said that, your insistence that it be Trump dossier is equally as much a declaration by yourself as what you're claiming about me, so relax. Let the RfC run its course and hopefully common sense will prevail. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can ignore all rules if you like, but there is still no evidence offered that Steele dossier is the common name. Evidence that Trump dossier is the common name is not something I declared by myself, but Google. Hzh (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It has two common names, Steele dossier (by the author) and Trump dossier (by the target). However Trump dossier is a lot more common (as Google search shows) because the target is a lot more notable. This is textbook example of WP:COMMONNAME. My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While Trump dossier is also used, it's very ambiguous. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is technically a Trump dossier.  I also see usage of "so-called Trump dossier"  and "anti-Trump dossier" . power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no way to consider "Russian interference" as a "Trump dossier". This is a big geopolitical play to undermine US and Europe . My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Personally I have never heard of the "Steele dossier", even though this has been a big topic in the news, and the current descriptive title describes the topic perfectly as it is. No need to change this per oppose comments above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017
This is not an official document but a research based on available sources and it is dependent on unverified information by the author. This is merely a summed up collection of opinions. Bdragomir (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ - That's not an edit request.- MrX 00:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)