Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 6

RS with lots of info about Steele and the Dossier
Three sources, with refs already prepared:


 * Guardian journalist has book coming on Trump and Russia By Associated Press
 * Luke Harding, a journalist who has reported on the so-called “Steele Dossier” compiled on Donald Trump has a book coming out Nov. 16.


 * Vintage Books told The Associated Press on Monday that Luke Harding’s “Collusion: Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win” will be a detailed narrative on Trump’s connections with the Russians.


 * How Trump walked into Putin’s web
 * The inside story of how a former British spy was hired to investigate Russia’s influence on Trump – and uncovered explosive evidence that Moscow had been cultivating Trump for years. By Luke Harding, The Guardian


 * Christopher Steele believes his dossier on Trump-Russia is 70-90% accurate
 * The respected ex-MI6 officer told Guardian journalist and author Luke Harding that his FBI contacts greeted his intelligence report with ‘shock and horror’. By Julian Borger, The Guardian

These sources are very rich, drawing largely on a book coming out on November 16, 2017. There are many bits of important information, and lots of good quotes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * More:
 * The five most interesting claims in the Donald Trump dossier


 * Two more:
 * The Ex-Spy Behind the Trump-Russia Dossier Left a Clue for Mueller Christopher Steele told a reporter that one real-estate deal might be key to understanding the collusion case.
 * Fusion GPS co-founder: Steele didn't pay sources for dossier on Trump By Manu Raju, Jeremy Herb and Katelyn Polantz, CNN
 * BullRangifer (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. Unfortunately, I do not have the book. I would suggest to improve/expand "Content" section of the page per "five claims" article: claim #1 should be included; claim #2 - should be included, even though it is well known from other sources; claim #3 is already included; claim #4 - not sure, this is something no one really denied, almost a matter of fact; claim #5 is that Michael Cohen, a Trump's lawyer "allegedly traveled to Prague in August 2016 to further “coordinate” the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia and to clean up the evidence of collusion and how to make final payments from both Russia and Trump to hackers" - this is something really important. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Contents section 1
To make some progress in building an outline, we need to address ground rules. Our sourcing policies allow that the subject of the article is a RS for its own opinions even if it's otherwise a totally unreliable source for other purposes. This would apply to biographies about people, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine nonsense, and articles about documents, books, etc.

The next thing to consider is how much weight to give each item in the outline. That is determined by the weight in outside RS. Basic mention is allowable from the original source, but any deeper description and comment would need outside sourcing. Each item would have at least two sources, one for the original dossier, and more for deeper descriptions.

I propose that we create a basic outline right here by going through the dossier and creating a few sentences summarizing each of the 16 (plus December) reports, including their page numbers and dates. For ease, here are two good sources to use for this task:


 * Original dossier as released by BuzzFeed. This isn't easy to copy from, and even the text version is filled with flawed Optical character recognition typos.
 * A clean copy that's easy to copy from, without the typos.

Feel free to copy this to your own sandbox and work on it, then report back. Go for it! -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Outline (they aren't always in chronological order):

Has anyone been working on this? I have finished all 17 sections in my own sandbox and am ready to copy it here for further input. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Contents section 2
Continued from. Here is what I have prepared. It's in two formats, the first with the actual summaries, and the second without them, IOW what we would include in the article. To ease editing and discussion, they have their own subsections. Let's work on each one and develop a short summary that does the job. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The media and the intelligence community have stressed that most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified.
In the lede, who has “stressed” this? Most recently, the “stress” I have seen is on the parts that have been verified and that this verification gives crediablity to the rest. As currently worded, this is not neutral in its wording. Casprings (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Sourced reports from immediately after the release on January 10 held that view, and right-wing and Russian sources still push that view, but mainstream RS and ALL intelligence sources have changed their tune as time has passed. The dossier has proved to be accurate enough to be used as the "road map" for official investigations. That would not be the case if its allegations were still largely unverified. That wording needs to be brought up to date. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can't give any specific examples of anything that has been verified in recent months, the comment above is mere WP:OR. McCabe just testified that the dossier remains largely unverified. I see that Casprings is again trying to force his POV into the lead despite being shot down in a previous RfC, and have challenged his recent edit under DS accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well for one, George Papadopoulos and his meeting and knowledge of the emails was confirmed yesterday. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html?_r=0 That said, the media is not "stressing" that it is unconfirmed and that needs to be taken out of the lede.Casprings (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Papadopoulos is not mentioned in the dossier, so there is no way that anything about Papadopoulos could possibly "confirm" anything in the dossier. Again, your comment amounts to nothing more than "Not A=A." (BTW, The New York Times report is taking about "Hillary emails," which may or may not be the DNC/Podesta emails. It's quite possible that the Russians and other foreign intelligence had access to Hillary's emails from her time as secretary of state due to what James Comey called her "extremely careless" handling of classified informtion.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a source that verifies Director Comey stating that such handling exposed any Clinton email to Russian hackers, this is again a BLP violation and what's more it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion on this talk page and is just a broadcast of a more or less unintelligible POV into the discussion of article improvement and editing issues. SPECIFICO  talk  01:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See "Hillary Clinton's Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say," The New York Times, July 6, 2016: "Mr. Comey described, in fairly blistering terms, a set of email practices that left Mrs. Clinton's systems wide open to Russian and Chinese hackers, and an array of others."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Per the close here: Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier, "not verified" should be removed as should the stressed part. Not verified literally means the same as unverified. I would ask, User:Sandstein to weigh in. Casprings (talk)
 * Consensus was to remove the word "unverified" as a qualifier for the term "allegations" as in "contains unverified allegations". The text at issue here, "The media and the intelligence community have stressed that most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified" is similar but not quite the same, because it contains the qualifier "most", and an attribution of this view. As somebody who's otherwise not familiar with the article, that's all I can say. Editors will need to decide whether the RfC consensus also applies to this wording through further discussion, I suppose.  Sandstein   18:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of us, including me explicitly supported removing "unverified" from (what was then) the second sentence because it was considered redundant with the "stressed" part later in the lead. No-one was commenting on anything but that one phrase in that one sentence. For you to spin that as a "consensus" to delete both "unverified" and the "stressed" text—after your main proposal, that Wikipedia affirmatively declare the dossier "verified," contrary to all RS, was resoundingly shot down—is utterly ridiculous and makes me think that I was wrong to try to compromise by supporting removal of "unverified" from the second sentence. No, if you want to introduce even more radical changes to the lead, you're going to need a new consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Caspring -- not "unverified" does not entail "verified". This requires nothing more grade school logic, certainly not more RfC.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine
has redacted the fact that the Trump administration recently took a harder anti-Russian line than the Obama administration ever did by approving lethal arms sales to Ukraine, which makes the controversy over the Trump campaign's role in modifying an amendment to the GOP platform that in fact strengthened the platform's anti-Russian line seem even more ridiculous than it did previously. (BTW, why doesn't Putin just use the pee-pee tape to make Trump stop?) She described this content as "SYNTH POV not on topic" for a paragraph devoted to the Ukraine/GOP platform issue. However, the sources disagree with her. For example, according to The Washington Post: During the 2016 GOP convention, the Trump campaign beat back efforts to have the Republican platform endorse lethal assistance to Ukraine. Trump campaign officials pushed to soften a proposed amendment to remove the language 'lethal defensive weapons' and replace it with 'appropriate assistance.'

Trump has now decided that lethal defensive weapons constitute 'appropriate assistance.' His decision to approve small amounts of weapons sales likely won't fundamentally change Putin's calculus or the trajectory of the war in Ukraine. But it's one sure sign that Trump's foreign policy views are evolving—or at least being influenced—as his presidency progresses. In light of the above, SPECIFICO should stop second-guessing one of America's papers of record and withdraw her objection.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just about to endorse your position TheTimesAreAChanging but then I noticed the WaPo piece is an opinion piece rather than news. I may be the last Wikipedian active in political articles who continues to support that distinction.  Anyway, maybe you can find a news source about it?  I could look if you want.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By that logic, the entire paragraph on Ukraine should be purged immediately, because the source (Natasha Bertrand in Business Insider) is clearly not hard news reporting. Along with much of the rest of this article!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging, maybe so. I just started looking at this article, and couldn't get past the first sentence before finding problems.  Opinion pieces should not be used unless they are deemed noteworthy by other sources that are reliable secondary sources, and they should never be the basis for statements in wikivoice.  According to WP:OR, "examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces...."  That policy also states, "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them".&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Los Angeles Times makes the same point in its reporting on this matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What does the article say about the dossier?Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The dossier claims that one of Putin's pre-conditions for releasing the DNC emails through WikiLeaks was that the Trump campaign sideline the Ukraine issue at the RNC. The notion that a major Russian covert operation was predicated on a symbolic document like the GOP platform is absurd on its face, but given that this is one of the dossier's central factual claims it would be seriously misleading to omit this crucial context.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I take it from this then it is you (and not the source) making the link.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Op-Eds use SYNTH all the time to provoke thought or discussion. WP does not. SPECIFICO  talk  19:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if one were to search for a significant opinion to support this as an attributed POV, this one is weak. It doesn't tie Trump personally to the decision and there's no evidence that he was even aware of it.  Sources tell us this is a continuation of previous US policy and also report that many other foreign policy steps have been taken without POTUS' direct involvement.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't tie Trump personally to the decision and there's no evidence that he was even aware of it." Lolwut? "Another senior Trump administration official said that Trump personally approved the decision to allow the issuing of the license after being presented a decision memo by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. While there was never a formal ban on such weapons transfers, the decision was discussed internally as a lifting of the de facto Obama administration restrictions, the official said." Of course, the big change came a few days after the Wash Post article, when the U.S. finally agreed to directly supply the Javelins.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of comments
I do not think this removal was appropriate. Such opinions do belong to the section about "reputation" of the dossier. But unfortunately, this page has the notorious "consensus required" editing restriction. Therefore, anyone has a cart blanche for removing new content at will. This is wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So make a case for it's inclusion. As far as I know no consensus was reached for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The burden of achieving consensus lies with the editor that wants to make the change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Here is text in question.

Julian Borger wrote in October 2017: "The fact that Steele’s reports are being taken seriously after lengthy scrutiny by federal and congressional investigators has far-reaching implications.... Senate intelligence committee...had come to a consensus in supporting the conclusions of a US intelligence community assessment in January this year that Russian had conducted a multi-pronged campaign to interfere in the 2016 election, in Trump’s favour.

It is a finding that echoes the reports that Steele was producing seven months earlier. Trump has called the assessment a 'hoax', but there is no sign the three agencies that came to that conclusion, the CIA, FBI and NSA, have had any second thoughts in the intervening months.... But as every passing month brings more leaks, revelations in the press, and more progress in the investigations, the Steele dossier has generally gained in credibility, rather than lost it."

Jonathan Chait wrote in December 2017: "As time goes by, more and more of the claims first reported by Steele have been borne out. In general, there is a split between the credibility afforded the dossier by the mainstream media and by intelligence professionals. The former treat it is gossip; the latter take it seriously....[W]e should probably be giving far more weight to the possibility that the darkest interpretation of Trump’s relations with Russia is actually true."

I think these quotations reflect the growing consensus that most claims in the dossier were real and are taken seriously. The quotations are recent, well sourced, made by experts, and on the subject of the page. Why anyone would like to remove them? Maybe one could make a summary instead of direct quotations, but they look like a definite improvement.My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, the DS notice says "challenged (via reversion)" -- in this case the rationale for the removal was that it was "longstanding content" in which case some argue it's not "reversion". If on the other hand one finds this was a reversion because it removed another editor's content, then this was a 1RR violation, due to this revert. As they say in Alabama, ya pays yer money ....  I think these are noteworthy, representative opinions and can be restored.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, weren't you just saying that opinion pieces are bad because they use WP:SYNTH? Chait and Borger's opinion pieces contain no new facts (they are nothing more than clever word games to pretend that A=not A; i.e., that "Russian interference" somehow proves there must be a pee-pee tape), and copy/pasting huge blockquotes is just not how encyclopedic writing is supposed to be done. BullRangifer added this content mere hours ago, so it certainly isn't longstanding.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN only applies to editing in WP, but not to RS. Authors frequently do synthesis of data, which fine. But perhaps one could use more sources, make a better summary, etc. - I have no specific judgement about this. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tell that to SPECIFICO.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my remark above. You appear to be the only one here who did not understand it. SPECIFICO  talk  04:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not commenting on the substance, but just style, this is excessive blockquoting. Use wikivoice or paraphrase with inline attribution, as appropriate.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with revisions which improve it. The quotes are a bit long, but I couldn't figure out how to shorten it without losing essential information. Anyone is welcome to propose improvements, but complete deletion violates WP:PRESERVE, which is a POLICY here, so complete deletion violated policy. Properly sourced content should be edited to improve it, (almost) never just deleted.
 * Although the part about SYNTH is regarding different content, opinion pieces are GOOD because they do the synthesis for us. We actually want that type of content. It is editors who must not synthesize content in an improper manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That also sounds reasonable. I think this is good quotation. Brief direct quotation can be good in cases when there is a dispute what exactly the sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Borger doesn't seem to be talking about any activity or collusion by Trump or Trump’s campaign, and Chait is a liberal commentator whom we can quote but not massively and with undue weight. So I have edited the material accordingly.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The radical revisions, with introduction of personal commentary, has also introduced POV OR by trying to limit which part of the dossier that has "gained credibility". No, the fact that the dossier wrote seven months before the official reports, that the Russians had interfered to help Trump, was only one part which gave it more credibility. There is nothing in the source which limits it to that fact. On the contrary. Please don't do that.

I appreciate an attempt to shorten the long quote, but this didn't improve it, and didn't even shorten it. The end result is still 68,301 bytes long! It would be better to let the source speak for itself, rather than introduce POV OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also...both quotes emphasized that the "dossier has generally gained in credibility" with the passage of time. That has been removed from the second quote, rendering the purpose of using it null. This needs to be restored: "As time goes by, more and more of the claims first reported by Steele have been borne out." They are many claims, not just the one about Russian interference. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article still says Steele’s report “‘has generally gained in credibility, rather than lost it’”, we don’t need to list every source or commentator who agrees with that. You say, “They are many claims, not just the one about Russian interference”, but you haven’t pointed to any other such claims described by the cited sources that have gained in credibility.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need to. We use the citation as authority, not mine or your opinions. Note that I did not include my opinions in the content, unlike you. Your inserted commentary is still OR. It adds your editorial opinion into the content, and, without any evidence from the source, claims that the "gain in credibility" is only related to the fact that there was a "campaign to interfere in the 2016 election". The source is talking about the whole dossier and does not make such a limitation, so it's better to just let the source speak and readers can jump to their own conclusions. Editors are not allowed to insert their own opinions. That's OR and an NPOV violation.
 * You also claimed that the content was too long and should be shortened, and yet the end result is the same length, largely because you added your own opinion after removing essential, cited, content. That's wrong. Please restore the complete quotes until a better revision can be agreed upon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Here’s the present language in the Wikipedia article:

This seems like a fair summary of those two sources.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Something more like below brings out the point made by both quotes, that the "dossier has generally gained in credibility" with the passage of time. That has been removed from the second quote, rendering the purpose of using it null. This needs to be restored. From their comments above, My very best wishes seems to understand this.


 * Here's a better version, which, by striking out unnecessary wording, is quite a bit shorter than the original, and leaves out your OR wording:


 * Julian Borger wrote in October 2017: "The fact that Steele’s reports are being taken seriously after lengthy scrutiny by federal and congressional investigators has far-reaching implications.... Senate intelligence committee...had come to a consensus in supporting the conclusions of a US intelligence community assessment in January this year that Russian had conducted a multi-pronged campaign to interfere in the 2016 election, in Trump’s favour.


 * It is a finding that echoes the reports that Steele was producing seven months earlier. Trump has called the assessment a 'hoax', but there is no sign the three agencies that came to that conclusion, the CIA, FBI and NSA, have had any second thoughts in the intervening months.... But as every passing month brings more leaks, revelations in the press, and more progress in the investigations, the Steele dossier has generally gained in credibility, rather than lost it."


 * Jonathan Chait wrote in December 2017: "As time goes by, more and more of the claims first reported by Steele have been borne out. In general, there is a split between the credibility afforded the dossier by the mainstream media and by intelligence professionals. The former treat it is gossip; the latter take it seriously....[W]e should probably be giving far more weight to the possibility that the darkest interpretation of Trump’s relations with Russia is actually true."


 * Final result:


 * Julian Borger wrote in October 2017: "The fact that Steele’s reports are being taken seriously after lengthy scrutiny by federal and congressional investigators has far-reaching implications.... [A]s every passing month brings more leaks, revelations in the press, and more progress in the investigations, the Steele dossier has generally gained in credibility, rather than lost it."


 * Jonathan Chait wrote in December 2017: "As time goes by, more and more of the claims first reported by Steele have been borne out. In general, there is a split between the credibility afforded the dossier by the mainstream media and by intelligence professionals. The former treat it is gossip; the latter take it seriously....[W]e should probably be giving far more weight to the possibility that the darkest interpretation of Trump’s relations with Russia is actually true."
 * BullRangifer (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant's summary of Borger left much to be desired, but his summary of Chait perfectly conveyed Chait's argument.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Dossier did not start the Russia investigation
Per:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html

need to note. Casprings (talk contribs) 17:48, December 30, 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Wow! This is fascinating. We already new that British and other foreign intelligence learned through their monitoring of Russian targets that Trump's campaign was scheming with the Russians to steal the election, and were alarmed enough to alert American intelligence, which was way behind the curve. I had no idea that Australia was also involved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m not aware that “British and other foreign intelligence learned through their monitoring of Russian targets that Trump's campaign was scheming with the Russians to steal the election”. What’s your best cite for that?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This and this are pretty good. This is old news, telling of events from before we knew of the dossier. The Australian angle is new. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Those two articles are from April 2017, User:BullRangifer. The second one (from CNN) merely rehashes and refers to the first one (from the Guardian).   The Guardian article discusses alleged “contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.”  Please note that Russian spies often try to cozy up to US presidential campaigns, often without wearing lapel pins saying “I’m a Russian spy.”  The Guardian article also says,  “The issue of GCHQ’s role in the FBI’s ongoing investigation into possible cooperation between the Trump campaign and Moscow is highly sensitive. “. Notice the word “possible.”  Not “probable”.  Not “proven”.  And neither article remotely says “Trump's campaign was scheming with the Russians to steal the election”.  Please try to be more circumspect, thanks.  We need to be careful not to mistakenly use Wikipedia to accuse people of criminal behavior or treason.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained below, this is about events in 2015, and the very slow reaction of the FBI, who didn't start acting until 2016. My comment is a synthesis of this information and information from the dossier. It is not for inclusion.
 * Here's the situation we're looking at. Let's say that the two of us are putting a puzzle together. When we are finished, we have a complete picture, except for a few missing pieces. We can easily see the picture, but it would be nice to see how the missing pieces show some connections between the pieces around the holes. Well, someone else we don't know hears of our "missing pieces" dilemma and offers some help. They present us with a handful of puzzle pieces, and they happen to fit exactly! But we're skeptical. We ask: "Can you prove these pieces were made by the same company which made our puzzle?" "Can you prove they belong here?" They cannot do so, but the missing pieces certainly do explain the rest of the picture in a manner not done without them, and it all makes sense.
 * That's the role of the dossier. Not only does it contribute to proven facts, it also explains them. It is theoretically possible that another explanation is true, but not very likely. Even without the missing pieces, the main picture remains the same. My statement takes into account all the evidence and sources we have. Because the "unproven" allegations in the dossier have such strong explanatory value, I personally treat them as likely true, but I'm not a RS for article content. Fortunately there are RS which do make the same synthesis, and we are allowed to use them. You don't have to believe them, but I do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said"
 * " a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians"
 * " the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow ahead of the US election"
 * Etc.  Volunteer Marek   21:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, "Not A=A." Brilliant!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, in other word, Papadopoulos.  Volunteer Marek   04:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Casprings, in what manner is this relevant to this article, and, if so, how and where should it be mentioned? It would help if we could see how this would work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing this part:
 * "The information that Mr. Papadopoulos gave to the Australians answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year: What so alarmed American officials to provoke the F.B.I. to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign months before the presidential election? It was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies."
 *  Volunteer Marek  07:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be the part.Casprings (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Casprings, yes, I see your point. That content has been developed quite a bit now. Is it satisfactory now, and is it mentioned properly in the lead? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Contents section development and mention in lead

 * Old version

The following long and awkward sentence of mine, which was moved, does need improvement and more sourcing. While it's factually better than the previous version, it isn't optimal:


 * "The dossier contains allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the period preceding the election, much of it detailing alleged cooperation between the campaign and Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump."


 * New version

That sentence is streamlined and greatly shortened below, and other significant subjects added, including all the necessary references. Here is a short version for the lead, and the rest can be used in the Contents section:


 * For lead

A major theme of the dossier is numerous allegations of misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump, his campaign, and the Russian government during and preceding the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with the purpose of interfering in the election to help Trump win. It also alleges that Trump is vulnerable to blackmail, but is being spared as long as he continues to co-operate. Also alleged is that Trump will receive a 19% stake (ca. $11 billion) in Rosneft oil company on condition he lifts the sanctions on Russia after his election.


 * For Contents section

More specifically, the dossier alleges that Russia has cultivated Trump for many years and that there exists an "extensive conspiracy between [Trump's] campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US." It also alleges that the hacking of the DNC servers was performed by Romanian hackers controlled by Putin and paid by both Trump and Putin, and that Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, arranged "deniable cash payments" to the hackers during a visit to Prague. Trump and Cohen have denied the allegations. Also alleged is that the "Kremlin [was] behind recent appearance of DNC e-mails on WikiLeaks, as means of maintaining plausible deniability."

It alleges there was an "[a]greed exchange of information established in both directions. TRUMP’s team using moles within DNC and hackers in the US as well as outside in Russia. PUTIN motivated by fear and hatred of Hillary CLINTON." It also alleges that the Kremlin has enough "embarrassing material" on Trump "to be able to blackmail him if they so wished", but it has "promised not to use" it "as leverage, given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team". It also alleges that Trump's representative, Carter Page, arranged a quid pro quo deal with the Rosneft oil company, in which Trump will receive a 19% stake (ca. $11 billion) in Rosneft in exchange for lifting sanctions on Russia after his election. Page confirmed this was Trump's intent and made the deal with Trump's "authority".

Commentary
The quotes are the actual allegations from the dossier, and multiple RS cite and describe them in detail, using names, so we have no BLP concerns when using the names with secondary RS.


 * Function of the dossier

The dossier describes "how" and "why" the Russian interference in the election was "planned" and "ended up working", and shows "why" domestic and foreign intelligence agencies trust it as the largely accurate "roadmap" for their investigations. It provides the explanatory framework for many proven events. Many of these "unproven" allegations explain the reality they have uncovered. Short of complete confessions or actual video tape and/or audible recordings, many of these allegations will likely forever remain "unproven", but their "shape" so exactly fits the individual holes in the whole "puzzle" that it is pretty safe to assume that Steele's sources were very good. That's why the "dossier has generally gained in credibility, rather than lost it" with the passage of time.


 * "As I understand it, a good deal of his information remains unproven, but none of it has been disproven, and considerable amounts of it have been proven." Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee

The dossier also provides the "who" by naming several Trump associates and describing their roles: Paul Manafort, Corey Lewandowski, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, and Michael Cohen. Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, and Lyndon LaRouche are also named. Numerous high profile Russians are named.

The campaign, election of Trump, actions of Trump and subordinates, and the myriad lies told by all members of his campaign, all prove it to be largely accurate intelligence. After "forgetting", lying, and gradually recollecting under duress, admissions have been forced out of them, all showing that they were attempting to hide a whole lot. Innocent people don't act this way.


 * Terminology used

Note that the word "collusion" is NEVER used in the dossier. It is also the "wrong word" to use. "Conspiracy" is the right word. Rather, the primary source uses the following terms:


 * "extensive conspiracy between campaign team and Kremlin";
 * "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership";
 * "TRUMP campaign/Kremlin co-operation";
 * "Russians apparently have promised not to use ‘kompromat’ they hold on TRUMP as leverage, given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team";
 * "As far as ‘kompromat’ (compromising information) on TRUMP were concerned, although there was plenty of this, he understood the Kremlin had given its word that it would not be deployed against the Republican presidential candidate given how helpful and co-operative his team had been over several years, and particularly of late."
 * "secret";
 * "secret meetings";
 * "secret TRUMP campaign / Kremlin relationship";
 * "secret liaison";
 * "secret contacts";
 * "ongoing secret liaison relationship between the New York tycoon’s campaign and the Russian leadership";
 * "secret dialogue";
 * "secret discussions";
 * "secret TRUMP-Kremlin liaison";
 * "importance of TRUMP’s lawyer, [blank] in covert relationship with Russia";
 * "[blank] engaged with Russians in trying to cover up scandal of [blank] and exposure of [blank] and meets Kremlin officials secretly in the EU in August in pursuit of this goal";
 * "need to cover up Kremlin’s TRUMP support operation";
 * "[blank] now was heavily engaged in a cover up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of TRUMP’s relationship with Russia being exposed."

I have [blanked] some names above to avoid BLP issues, not because we don't have numerous secondary RS which do use the names, but because I haven't added them right after each line. So, just to avoid any problems, I have blanked them. This isn't being considered for inclusion anyway, at least not right now.


 * "Treason doesn't even begin to describe it."

The deal made by Page with Rosneft has received the strongest reaction I have seen due to its nature. These words have been used by Jacob Weindling:


 * "A potential scandal so big, words don't exist to convey it.... A lot of this report speaks for itself, but I want to take a moment to stress this potential revelation. In exchange for dropping sanctions that were levied for invading an ally, the president of the United States would receive a personal stake in a Russian oil company. Treason doesn't even begin to describe it." (Emphasis added)

Let's work on this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Please bring forward any wordings you find awkward or possibly wrong. Let's work to improve this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is there a citation needed tag in the lede?  Volunteer Marek  08:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I objected to an unsourced editorial statement that "The dossier primarily discusses possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election," rather than compromising ties between Trump and Russia. BullRangifer then rephrased the text to more closely match the body, but Anythingyouwant added a tag to the revised sentence. In my opinion, the tag is no longer necessary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence is probably correct, but since we are footnoting the lead, readers would be well-served by a footnote so they can confirm and find elaboration.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Without having seen this discussion, I have changed the second sentence from It contains allegations of misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump, his campaign, and the Russian government before and during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, to It contains allegations of misconduct and conspiracy between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russian government before and during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Even if some kind of rewording is decided on at this discussion, we should keep in mind that the dossier does not allege electoral misconduct and conspiracy on the part of Trump himself, only his campaign. That's an important point and we need to get it right. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Trump was of course the leader, focus, and ultimately always director of the campaign, but we should stick with the wording in the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead needs copyediting
The definition of what the dossier actually is is not given until the seventh sentence; Donald Trump is linked in said sentence (implying it was meant to be the second or third sentence), but in the previous sentence he is referred to as "Trump himself" I considered moving it around myself, but then realized that there's a high probability this has already been discussed extensively and the current poor layout is a compromise that wasmade without care for how it would actually appear to the reader. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 19:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed, Thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "It contains unverified allegations of misconduct and collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the period preceding the election" was originally the second sentence, as can be seen from earlier revisions. That should be restored.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually fixed, now.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC on lead
Per this RFC and this discussion, should the following sentence in the lede include:
 * 1) The statement “most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified.”
 * 2) State that the media “Have stressed” number 1.

“The media and the intelligence community have stressed that most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified.”

Please answer for as follows. Casprings (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, Yes
 * 2) Yes, No
 * 3) No, Yes
 * 4) No, No

Survey about lead

 * No, No Sources are stressing how much is verified, not unverified. See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786, https://www.aol.com/video/channel/news/58dd25ce9e451054817f3572/ . also, given recent news, its very hard to say what is verified and as(if) more becomes verified it gives more legitimacy to the rest, as such, the sentence is pov.Casprings (talk)
 * No, No I think it is completely unclear what we are talking about. The lead must be a lot more specific and describe which exactly specific allegations were proven correct/incorrect/unproven/whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep long-standing summary of article body in the lead. Even if Casprings, from his vantage point as a Wikipedia editor, is correct that the dossier might possibly be verified in the future, such speculation falls squarely under WP:CRYSTAL. BTW, the following representative sources may be of interest to editors:TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, No per Casprings. Most sources actually stress the opposite.  Volunteer Marek   21:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also I thought we already had an RfC which was closed to remove the "unverified" (which is the same as "not verified").  Volunteer Marek   21:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes (we should keep the statement but edit it to say “accusations in the dossier about collusion have not been verified, but some of the other material in the dossier has been verified" );No (if we have a sentence in the first paragraph (as there is now) saying "Some parts of the dossier have been confirmed, while others have not"); No (we don't need to say anyone "stressed" anything).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, ABORT. Per WP:RFC, "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others."  And this RFC is also malformed by offering a take-it-or-leave-it proposal without any suggestion how the material can be fixed. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.

Politrukki (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Beavers, Olivia. “House Intel panel subpoenas McCain associate over Trump dossier”, The Hill (December 27, 2017): “Certain parts of the dossier have either been confirmed or proven false, while other parts of the memo compilation remain unverified.”


 * Lee, Michelle. “Trump slams FBI, attacks Steele dossier”, The Washington Post via Mercury News (December 26, 2017): “Officials have said that some of the information it contains has been corroborated, but other parts – including the most salacious claims about Trump's behavior – remain unverified.”

&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No, no, unless someone can produce some recent sources that actually actually say that most of the dossier has not been verified. Regardless, we should not introduce the subject by discussing what the media has "stressed". That's just bad writing. Also, long-standing content is exactly what we don't need in this article, when more recent sources are available to use for updating the material. For example, the 'Veracity' section has entire paragraphs that are really not fair representations of the subject because the sources are so outdated. - MrX 22:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no for 100, Alex.
 * I mean, really. This is like the POV whack-a-mole at this point. It's not tenable to deny the Russians were involved so now we have discussions claiming the Dossier has been discredited?  Really folks?  Can we get down to work here and write an article based on the overwhelming narrative of RS publications?   SPECIFICO  talk


 * No, No - per MrX. Neutralitytalk 03:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, No. The sentence should be deleted. It is a holdover from a year ago, when the dossier was first published and commentators were treating it cautiously. In the intervening year they have stopped "stressing" that the allegations are "unverified", mostly because some of the information has turned out to be spot-on. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like what? In his recent testimony before Congress, McCabe was unable to cite any example beyond the fact that Carter Page made a trip to Russia, which was widely reported at the time: "But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier's allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow." Just today (January 5, 2018), The New York Times, America's paper of record, again strongly emphasized that much of the dossier "remains unsubstantiated nearly a year after it became public."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, No - I'd say the Yes conforms to WP:LEAD of summarizing what the article is saying, Mostly Unverified. But I'd say the whole  section about confirmed and unconfirmed is too vague and should simply be dropped as being badly done and not appropriate anyway, or at least more widely redone.   It's not just this one line.  The problems with that part of the lead starts with what looks like POV editing a cite "Certain parts of the dossier have either been confirmed or proven false, while other parts of the memo compilation remain unverified" and then talks about as 2017 comes to a close, which is confusing when two lines later is talking about February -- in a few weeks that part will be even more confusing.  The line about "most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified" seems still current, but is too vague about 'most' or what the 'allegations' are -- the article only lists 5 and does not have an External link to the Buzzfeed text, and that line does not have a cite so ... exactly what allegations are they talking about and the status of each is simply not available.  I'm not even convinced it matters -- this was a dodgy dossier of suspicions gathered as a paid opposition research of what rumors there were, it was not about verification. Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, no. Most recent coverage emphasizes how much has been verified, not how little, and certainly 'most' doesn't reflect the current coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about lead
I've added some "more sources" that say some of the claims have been verified and some haven't.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, so why can't we say "some parts have been verified, others haven't". I get a sense that some want to pretend that "unverified" means the same as "untrue", which it doesn't.  Volunteer Marek   21:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the collusion stuff is completely unverified, per the hidden sources above. But some other stuff has been verified.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. In other words, none of the stuff that people care about has been verified.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us little editors to guess what "stuff" people care about. A lot of the Dossier has been confirmed and RS tell us that the investigators are using it to track down hard evidence, and that they have already confirmed more than the public has been told. So let's not deny reality.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "They have already confirmed more than the public has been told." No RS has said anything of the kind. While your speculation might possibly be true, it is purely WP:OR. A "consensus" to engage in OR and to go beyond the realm of publicly reported information into unverifiable speculation by anonymous Wikipedia editors cannot stand.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Volunteer Marek - adding some parts have been proven false would make that clearer - 'some parts have been proven true, some parts proven false, and most remains unverified'. Markbassett (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which parts 'have been proven false'? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer Marek Just pointing out that your voiced concern above that mostly unverified sounds like untrue is not confusing in the cite ... and your concern might not exist if the cite language middle part re certain parts proven untrue was present.Markbassett (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Markbassett, I'm aware of a source or two (usually extreme right-wing) which make that claim, but what has been proven false? Oh yes, a typo Alpha should have been Alfa. The description of a place isn't totally correct, even if largely correct, all depending on POV. That type of thing has been "proven false". Included in many sources as "false" information are the allegations that Michael Cohen had "clandestine" meetings in Prague to cover up for Manafort and Page and "Moscow’s secret liaison with the TRUMP team more generally", and to make "deniable cash payments" to the Romanian hackers who allegedly hacked the DNC. Only because Cohen denied having been in Prague, those allegations are considered "proven false" by many sources, but we know that a denial is not evidence.
 * Otherwise, those in the know trust it more and more, and much has been proven, including names, places, and times for meetings. What is left unproven to the public may have been proven to the intelligence community, but Trump and his campaign must not get that information before they are tried in court. Unproven does not equal proven false.
 * Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has stated: "As I understand it, a good deal of his information remains unproven, but none of it has been disproven, and considerable amounts of it have been proven." (Emphasis added)
 * So, do you know of anything or of any source which shows that something significant has truly been "proven false", besides minor stuff like typos (lots of them)? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:BullRangifer I was pointing out that part of the cite language had not been included. The cite line is clearer because it speaks re three categories and mentions parts confirmed, parts proven untrue, and parts unverified.  As to RS critical views of the dossier, yes I do know of such ... and suggest it would do you more good to Google for yourself.  The provenance, funding, quality (typos being one demonstration), lack of indications of credibility or multiple sources are some bits.  But after all, he was paid to collect negative rumors and a tabloid or internet conspiracy look seems a natural outcome.Markbassett (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark. I'm not sure I understand you, and I certainly don't want to misunderstand you. What cite are we talking about, exactly? Please provide the wording and URL. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer The first cite in the lead para the thread is talking of, overall cite8. “Certain parts of the dossier have either been confirmed or proven false, while other parts of the memo compilation remain unverified”.  VM voiced concern on unverified being read as untrue would not occur if the article text had included the cites mention of untrue as well as unverified.  Could also just cut to the later overall summary in the line of cite11 “salacious and mostly uncorroborated”.  I’d just as soon drop the whole paragraph though as just too POV and not related much to the article gossipy nature being who said what about the dossier, kind of matching its gossipy nature.   Otherwise, your call re Critical evaluations of the document itself again would be best if you google for yourself.  Cheers.  Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. Found it. The current wording seems uncontroversial and neutral: "Parts of the dossier have been confirmed, while others have not." Fine with me. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Even for you, Casprings, this is one of the most biased and malformed RfCs I've ever seen. "Most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified" is a FACT, not an opinion, but "The media and intelligence community" qualifier actually serves to attribute and thus water down that claim—not to strengthen it, as you appear to imply by confusingly reversing the language. By reversing the language and creating four options when only two are needed, you have created an RfC that is simply incomprehensible. What is Yes, No a vote for? "The media and intelligence community have stressed."??? Why can't you just file a normal RfC without weird POV insinuations and options that make no sense whatever?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's biased and malformed about it? It's stated in a perfectly neutral manner. As to whether it's a fact or not, it depends on what is meant by the word "most". Most sources stress that good portions of the dossier have in fact been verified.  Volunteer Marek   21:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's phrased as take-it-or-leave-it, with no option to fix it. Aren't RFCs supposed to follow discussions that were not resolved?  Where was the prior discussion here?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a previous RfC which was closed with the outcome that "unverified" should be removed. Already mentioned it.  Volunteer Marek   22:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That was about the word "unverified" in the lead: "Consensus is in favor of option 1 (removing "unverified" from the lead)". But here we have an RFC about the words "not been verified".  That's comparing Macintosh and Red Delicious.  Isn't it, like, 100% obvious that some parts of the dossier have been verified and some haven't?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it?  Volunteer Marek   22:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You don’t think that’s Obvious from the sources listed when you click “show”?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's obvious to me. I don't think it's obvious it's obvious to everyone out there.  Volunteer Marek   00:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That RfC was about an adjective in the second sentence, which some of us (including me) considered redundant precisely because the lead went into more detail on the same subject in the second paragraph. I would have opposed removing "unverified" from the second sentence if I had known that others would later claim to interpret the RfC to require the gutting of the (undiscussed during the RfC) second paragraph.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , : By your own logic, doesn't 's close (which states "Consensus is ... against option 2 (describing the dossier's content as partially verified)" also require removal of the following long-standing text?: "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." Or will you admit that your interpretation is untenable, as no-one understood the previous RfC to be binding beyond the first paragraph or to mandate such far-reaching changes at the time? Honestly, these RfCs are absurd: The lead should summarize the body, but Anythingyouwant, BullRangifer, and especially Casprings focus almost all of their attention on making POV changes to the lead, with the result that it has become increasingly and radically disconnected from the body. The body already makes clear that some conversations between foreign nationals have been corroborated, and that the media has stressed that most of the allegations have not been verified, so any "consensus" to omit these crucial facts from what should be the least contentious part of the article—the lead summary—can only be dismissed as a "consensus" to ignore basic policy. While Casprings is certainly the worst offender, this problem is bipartisan; I consider it almost unbelievable that Anythingyouwant tried to sneak in speculation that Steele might not be the true author directly into the lead, when the body doesn't even hint at anything of the kind.  That's not how articles are supposed to be written! TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * " The body already makes clear that some conversations between foreign nationals have been corroborated," - Yes. And this should be summarized in the lede (I think we agree here).
 * "and that the media has stressed that most of the allegations have not been verified" - Sorry, I'm not seeing this in the body. Looking at the Veracity section, the only thing that comes close is the two sentences or so based on a Newsweek (opinion piece?). And, by your logic, if it's not discussed in the body, then there's nothing to summarize in the lede.  Volunteer Marek   09:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For God's sake, the former head of the FBI went out of his way to emphasize that the dossier is "salacious and unverified" in his congressional testimony. A "consensus" to drop that fact down the memory hole because editors dislike it for political reasons would only prove that consensus and madness are not mutually exclusive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose removing from this article that “James Comey called the dossier ‘salacious and unverified.’[65]” I’m not aware that anyone has proposed removing that.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we need to look at removing it. One, it is a a primary source. We need a secondary source that gives the comment significants. You are just picking our one line from his testimony. Second, it is dated. He made those comments, a whole back with dated info. Thus, wp:weight is an issue.Casprings (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just added a footnote for it, though am very busy today. How Comey described the dossier to Trump and to Congress are significant parts of its history.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. However, I think we need. 1. Mulitiple secordary sources that show that this comment is important to his testimony and to the subject. 2. A discussion about what the weight should be given the age of the tesimony. His comment won't be notable, if the document proves to be mostly true.Casprings (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the RFC is worded fine, however if there is consensus that it is not, I will be happy to withdraw it.Casprings (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging, why are you trying to add this kind of material to the article while the RfC is ongoing (and consensus appears to be against)? That seems like a violation of a DS too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How could an RfC on the lead initiated on December 31, 2017, have any bearing on whether or not the body should include content from The New York Times dated January 5, 2018? There is no serious argument that The New York Times is an unreliable source or that its reporting of January 5, 2018 is "outdated," so you should consider withdrawing your scurrilous "challenge" to this well-sourced material.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it's not the lede, which I guess makes it technically not DS violation. And you still need to get consensus. Also please economize on the use of unnecessary provocative adjectives such as "squirrelous" in your future comments. I don't even like nuts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you like collecting nuts, VM, and then you pelt people with them at AE. In any event, do you have any remotely plausible reason for this revert?  I support including that material because it’s relevant and informative and current.  It’s not proper to revert merely because of a purported lack of consensus if no substantive reason is given.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reason? NPOV? 🐿️ V? 🐿️ DS? 🐿️ How many reasons do you want?  SPECIFICO talk 00:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you chosen those reasons at random, or do they apply in some way to the facts at hand?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean the lack of facts, right Yankee?  SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you think those policies affect whether we should include this sentence: "In January 2018, The New York Times reported that much of the dossier "remains unsubstantiated nearly a year after it became public.NYT"?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's cherry picking a PART of a sentence from an article that isn't about the veracity of the dossier. It's quite a stretch to say "NYT reported" in that circumstance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How about "Prosecutors have not disclosed whether they have yet verified all of the statements in the Dossier"? What say you?  SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that looks pretty good. Strong source as well. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Except for the teensy problem that SPECICO is directly contradicting the source, by saying prosecutors have not revealed whether the dossier has been mostly substantiated, whereas the NYT flatly says it hasn’t.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the version you presented followed the source and is more correct. PackMecEng (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * NYT citation by is solid and timely. Support adding this instead of the convoluted "some things were verified, others weren't" relying on year-old sources. — JFG talk 02:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not for the text that is being proposed. The source is NOT about the veracity of the dossier but the text falsely implies otherwise. Rather, the text is based on a cherry picked fragment of a sentence from the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Grasping at cherries, nuts and I forgot SYNTH. We don't know what's been verified -- only what's been disclosed.  We do know that Anything's version falsely suggests the dossier has been mostly discredited by the Feds. Nix.  Mine sticks to what we know, regardless of whether it's worth stating in the article.  SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please mind BLP's and Q's
I have removed a false statement about Sec'y Clinton on this talk page, per  SPECIFICO  talk  21:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Extremely careless handling seems synonymous with mishandling, no?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the sake of the Project here, we editors are instructed never to be careless about BLP. SPECIFICO  talk  21:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not careless to say Clinton was careless.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And I could care less. Just don't enable smearers and BLP violations. SPECIFICO  talk  01:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Who wrote the dossier
Shouldn’t this article mention somewhere that Steele’s role in preparing the dossier may have been exaggerated? See Smith, Lee. "Did President Obama Read the ‘Steele Dossier’ in the White House Last August?", Tablet (December 20, 2017): “Last week’s revelation that Simpson hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of ranking Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, to work on the dossier certainly supports Jacoby’s implicit contention that Steele’s role in compiling the dossier has been exaggerated.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tablet is not a sufficient source for such a WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying that Steele’s role “may have” been exaggerated is quite different from saying it “has” been exaggerated. Whatever.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been removed, so this is somewhat moot, but I think we need much more than the speculations of the only source which says this, contrary to all others which credit Steele. Several RS which cover Nellie Ohr's connection to Fusion GPS state that her role is "unknown". This is the only source which implies that Steele is not properly credited as the sole, responsible, author.
 * Even if he got some copy editing help from Ohr and/or Simpson, and such help is indeed common with articles, columns, and research, the lead researcher is credited, and the others are often given no mention. So far Steele bears the full responsibility and credit for the dossier, which was not produced at Fusion GPS in Washington, D.C., but at Orbis Business Intelligence in London, and then sent to Fusion GPS. We need more RS with this type of claim before we tamper with changing the dossier's authorship status. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not even Lindsey Graham, as far as I can tell, has gone so far as to claim that Nellie Ohr or anyone else at Fusion GPS had anything to do with the content of the dossier. As has been pointed out by many, this is a ‘’dossier’’ (a collection of papers per our definition), not a prepared, edited, summary report. Rather, it is a series of individual intelligence reports - raw field reports - produced at different times over a period of months. The style and presentation make it clear that they came directly from the investigator (Steele) and have not been processed or edited by others. Anyhow, the public version (the one shown to multiple journalists and ultimately published by Buzzfeed) did not even go through Fusion as far as I can tell; it was given to the FBI, and to journalists, directly by Steele himself. So the possibility that she had input to it is a phony issue that no Reliable Source even seems to have raised. It should not be mentioned in the article and there is no point in pursuing it here at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will pay close attention to what Lindsey Graham says about this.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's reversion of Dept. of Justice involvement
SPCEIFICO reverted the new material I added about Bruce and Nellie Ohr's involvement in the Dossier with false claims about needing additional sources besides Fox News. That is total B.S. Fox is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. This story has been so widely reported that SPECIFICO is probably well aware of it. Besides that, members of various house and senate committees have been interviewed or commented on this, which I can post videos of. Some of those will be referenced with some additional material.Phmoreno (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have more sources, as fox news reports on Seth Rich, Trump (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16790592/fox-news-coup?, and others are pretty questenable. Plus you need consensus on new material, if challenged. i would suggest you self revert.Casprings (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you respect Wikipedia policy.Phmoreno (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to build consensus before that material is reintroduced into the article. You have already violated the page editing restrictions. Please don't do that again.
 * I'm skeptical that this material should be included. It seems a bit like scandal-mongering, and WP:UNDUE given coverage mostly limited to sources like Heavy, The Washington Times, Breitbart and the Daily Caller.- MrX 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion of Bruce Ohr's involvement with Dossier and other missing information
It is hardly undue weight to say who was behind the dossier and that it may have been used illegally, as indicated by Lindsey Graham, among others. Among other things Graham was allowed to see how the DOJ used the dossier.

“I’m very disturbed about what the Department of Justice did with this dossier, and we need a special counsel to look into that, because that’s not in Mueller’s charter. And what I saw, and what I’ve gathered in the last couple of days, bothers me a lot, and I’d like somebody outside DOJ to look into how this dossier was handled and what they did with it.”… “After having looked at the history of the dossier, and how it was used by the Department of Justice, I’m really very concerned, and this cannot be the new normal.”  Lindsey Graham.

Proposed edit:

In early December 2017, Burce G. Ohr, associate deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice, was demoted for failing to disclose ties to Fusion GPS. Bruce Ohr had met with Christopher Steele and later with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Additionally, Bruce Ohr's wife Nellie Ohr was employed by Fusion GPS to provide intelligence on Trump.

There's additional information that could be added about the FBI refusing to provide answer's to the House committee's questions related to who paid for the dossier and whether payment through a law firm violated election laws. All of this will be covered in Inspector General Horowitz's report, but that may take months.Phmoreno (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Then we wait those months. In the meantime this is just scandal mongering and undue.  Volunteer Marek   20:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that we know the Clinton Campaign and DNC were behind the dossier and they had the assistant deputy attorney general's wife as a subcontractor it truly is a scandal! We don't need to wait for the IG's report to add that.  The IG's report will give the fine details about exactly who inside the Dept. was involved and what their involvement was (FISA requests, un-maskings, etc.)and report an any possible violation of laws, plus recommendations on policy and procedure changes to prevent anything like this from happening again.Phmoreno (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ph, your 3 citations above are not RS for this. SPECIFICO  talk  21:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You really need to lay off the fake news. DNC conducted opposition research. That's what political parties do. So "DNC was behind the dossier!" is just a ridiculous statement. And wtf does "assistant deputy attorney's barber's second cousin's world of warcraft guild member high school coach's wife" have to do with anything?  Volunteer Marek   22:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are questioning. In admitting that she in part paid Fusion GPS Clinton is not telling the story correctly when she said that a Republican started the dossier when actually the Republican in question had only contracted with Fusion GPS to do some research.  The dossier hadn't been started at that point.  Also it was illegal to list the law firm as the expense rather than Fusion GPS.Phmoreno (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever.  Volunteer Marek   00:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Does our article say anything otherwise? No? Then what's your point? (Except for the "it was illegal" part, which is nonsense)  Volunteer Marek   00:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "failing to disclose ties to Fusion GPS" doesn't quite match up with the sourced text, which just says he met with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS. Anyway, we should follow what the source says, maybe something like "failing to disclose meetings with Steele and Simpson". In addition, that article doesn't mention anything about where Ohr's wife worked, which could be just as relevant as where his parents or kids worked. FallingGravity 01:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bruce Ohr's wife Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GSP at the time the dossier was written. See reference 7 above.Phmoreno (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know that. So what? Frankly, if she did work on it, it would be a feather in her cap, but without multiple RS saying otherwise, Steele still gets credited as the author. It was his sources who provided the information, and his work writing the individual intelligence reports in MI6 style. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, whether she worked on the dossier is irrelevant because that is not what the proposed edit says. And no, no additional RS's are required.  Per policy only one RS is needed; however, there are more: CNN, plus at least one source has Trey Gowdy saying essentially the same thing on video.Phmoreno (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's WP:UNDUE fake scandal mongering.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What we have is a few partisan sources - Graham, Gowdy - claiming there might be something fishy going on here. More than half of the references offered here are simply quoting them. They have hinted that there might be something illegal about how the FBI used the dossier, but they have given no specifics about exactly what was illegal about it, and we should not mention any such allegation, not even sourced to them.

With that said, there might something relevant to say but we need to read the sources carefully. The report that he was demoted because of contacts with Fusion is from a Fox News report, which seems to mix up or synthesize its sources - implying that he was demoted because of Fusion ties, even though the DOJ has not said so and has offered another reason (that it was unusual for someone to hold two positions as Ohr did - both Associate Deputy Attorney General and and Director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces - and that he was going to go back to focusing on the drug enforcement unit.) I would not trust the Fox News source alone, but the CNN source also makes the connection, although its sourcing is similarly murky. Both the Fox News article and the CNN article are using sneaky, suggestive wording: Neither article say he was demoted BECAUSE OF the Fusion ties, they both say he was demoted “AMID DISCOVERY OF” or “AMID INVESTIGATION OF” those ties. If we say anything, we should follow their lead and not state that was the reason for his reassignment. I suggest modifying the proposed new wording and using only the two three sources I mentioned here. (make it three - we need one for his wife's employment by Fusion) If we do want to include anything about Ohr, it should be something like this:

In early December 2017, Bruce G. Ohr, associate deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice, was demoted after reports surfaced that he had met with Christopher Steele and later with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson and that his wife Nellie Ohr had been employed by Fusion GPS to provide intelligence on Trump.

BTW he was supposed to be interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee but that was postponed; we should add it when and if he actually does go before the committee. MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really, we should just wait on this stuff. If there's anything to it, it will come out. If, as is more likely, there isn't, it will just die out (like the Seth Rich stuff, like the Awan Bros stuff, like several others attempts at distracting from the actual investigation).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate that you made this material more coherent, but I'm still opposed to including it. Serious coverage in mainstream sources is outweighed by highly partisan coverage in fringe sources. I also think we have to acknowledge that FoxNews is slipping in credibility as a new organization.- MrX 15:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for its inclusion either. I was just proposing a better and better-sourced version, if there is consensus to include something. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. As for Fox News, they have never been neutral in their selection of what stories to cover, but they have mostly been considered reliable in their presentation of facts. Their series of stories about Ohr have maybe pushed the line a little. Personally, in addition to the RS criterion, I always evaluate a particular story on its own merits - that is, for any asserted fact I try to determine what the assertion is based on, what their source was. My question always is "who said so and how do they know?" That's something I found to be rather weak in both of the sources I cited here - Fox and CNN. Both resorted to synthesis, saying in the same sentence "he was demoted" and "he has been under investigation," implying without evidence that the latter was the cause of the former. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As for "who said it" and "what did they know" it was the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) form information they gathered. Phmoreno (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware that the chair of that committee has been so blatantly partisan in his handling of this case that he had to recuse himself from supervising the investigation (a recusal which he has repeatedly violated). Selective leaks from that committee to Fox News, combined with refusal to publish the transcript of Simpson's testimony, suggest the committeee is probably not the most Reliable Source for information. But that aside, we have included information from their investigation in our article. I am just objecting to any attempt to say that Ohr was demoted because of some kind of misconduct, when the Justice Department which did the demoting has said no such thing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ph -- At this point, I believe the consensus on American Politics articles is that Fox News is not RS for content concerning American Politics broadly defined! You could disagree and take the question to RSN, but short of that I think it's pointless to keep citing alternative facts as references for extraordinary statements in these articles.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can "believe" that if you want to, SPECIFICO, but no such consensus exists. MelanieN, I assume you know that Nunes has unrecused himself since he was cleared of leaking classified information by the House Ethics Committee?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN (23:37, 2 January 2018), good points about what the sources say or don't say. Your proposal is a very good start. However, I would like add that The Wall Street Journal reported that failing to disclose a meeting with Steele was the specific reason for Bruce Ohr's transfer: "Justice Department officials said they only recently learned about Mr. Ohr's meeting. He has since been stripped of his title as an adviser in the office of the deputy attorney general, the nation's second-ranking law enforcement official. The department took that step because officials were concerned Mr. Ohr had failed to tell them about his contacts with Mr. Steele, even after a furor erupted over Mr. Steele, his dossier and Fusion GPS." The article is behind paywall, but you can check the first paragraph and a bit more without climbing the wall and I can provide more quotations from the article, if necessary. We should also say that Bruce Ohr never had any part in the Russia investigation. Politrukki (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone relying on attacking Fox News and certain other sources should have been watching this unfold on television, with important testimony on live TV, or TV interviews after closed door hearings. You can watch these testimony recordings and interviews with key people on youtube.com as a primary source. Anyone can easily find statements from committee members about testimony that confirms sources. As for Bruce Ohr, the committee probably learned of his activities from Inspector General Horowitz, who is in the process of investigating political bias. I believe it was Jason Chaffetz who this morning gave the timeline for the release of the Inspector General's report as roughly mid-March. Information about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page came from a leak of the IG's findings. Again, most of the information from so called unreliable sources can easily be verified.21:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs)
 * Look. Reliable sources or quit it with the WP:SOAPBOX (and the "I'm just doing it to provoke analytic thinking (sic)" excuse is not gonna fly for long).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ph, you're openly advocating Original Research, Primary Sources, cherrypicking, and other editing against policy. Please stop.  SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, some of you are trying to discredit Fox News as a RS. That needs to stop.Phmoreno (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Your statement right above, made at 21:25, 3 January 2018, explicitly says that you're not relying on Fox News but rather your own viewing of ... television. Nice try at deflection though. 2) Fox News is not RS. While not everyone might agree with that position, enough editors thinks so that it is perfectly fine to make that argument. It's a perfectly valid position, unlike, say, trying to use the wacko conspiracy site ZeroHedge as a reliable source, like you did above. 3) Reliable sources or stop it with the WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing/improving “James Comey called the dossier ‘salacious and unverified.’
The article currently states that Comey called the doaaier 'salacious and unverified'. I have 3 basic problems with this.

1. The cite links to a primary source, not a secondary source. In my mind, we need secondary sources that speak to why this is important and relavent.

2. Given that this is a secondary source, I do not know the context. I haven't read and found where he states this.

3. Given the date is his testimony, he was working from older information in an ongoing process. This is an issue of WP:Weight, especially when the article lacks both the context of #2 and the context of the age of the information he was working from.Casprings (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree, it's outdated recentism based on a primary source.  Volunteer Marek   22:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Past its sell-by date. Useful only for fromaggiers and POV tilts. Remove. SPECIFICO  talk  23:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Casprings, I already said in a previous talk page section “I just added a footnote for it, though am very busy today. How Comey described the dossier to Trump and to Congress are significant parts of its history“, and you responded “that sounds good”, but now you start a new talk page section that overlooks this rationale as well as the new footnote. I will see about adding one or more further footnotes tomorrow, but as of now we have this:

&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First, we need to follow the secondary source you provide. The secondary source says two basic things.


 * 1. "Later, in the hearing, Comey explained that his assurance to Trump was mostly related to the context of the Christopher Steele dossier, and Comey’s desire to let Trump know that Comey was not using it to blackmail the president:"


 * 2. "Comey, incidentally, did not say the Steele dossier was categorically false; indeed, given two questions about the dossier by Republican Senator Richard Burr, Comey insisted he could not answer them in an open setting."


 * Second, we also need to address the time period the of the statement. We need to date his testimony came before an investigation. This is important and something that Comey even states, as pointed out in the secondary source. "Comey: That’s a question I don’t think I should answer in an opening setting. As I said, when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump. But that’s a question that will be answered by the investigation, I think." Casprings (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggested wording

Casprings (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The source itself says he "he could not answer them [questions about the dossier's validity] in an open setting", not that he "refused to state the dossier was false". Let's focus on what Comey actually said about the dossier, instead of what he did not say. FallingGravity 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Amended per FallingGravity's comment, to more closely track the source's language ("Comey, incidentally, did not say the Steele dossier was categorically false; indeed, given two questions about the dossier by Republican Senator Richard Burr, Comey insisted he could not answer them in an open setting").TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am good with thar edit. The next issue is rather to keep the first sentence. The secondary source does not point it out. it is part of a block quote in the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finding more secondary sources is easy. You can try these:, , Politrukki (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is clearly the best suggestion so far. However, Specifico inserted the "refusing to state that it was false" straw man – Comey was not asked to state that the document was false and the Daily Intelligencer columnist does not such claim – back into the article. Without explaining why we need to engage in original research. Casprings's version included a fake quote "However, he refused to...". If that was not meant to be a quote, then it was just good ol' synthesis, which should have never been in the article. Politrukki (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I had intended to insert "declined to state..." but then I used the word declining right afterward and I must have retained the "refuse" which although I would not call it a "straw man" is at any rate not supported by the cited source and suggests explicit contention over the question.  SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleting the word “collusion”
User:BullRangifer has now replaced occurrences of the word “collusion” with “conspiracy”. The word “collusion” is defined as “a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy“. So they’re synonymous. Reliable sources very often use the word “collusion” to describe what’s alleged in the Steele report, so I hope we are not going to ignore all those sources merely because they prefer that word to “conspiracy”.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * &#32;Anythingyouwant, did you even READ the edit summary and LOOK AT the actual edits? I fear not.
 * Edit summary: "The dossier never uses the word "collusion", but does use "conspiracy". We should only use the words collude or collusion when actually quoting sources."
 * THREE occurrences changed, and not a single quoted instance changed.
 * My caution is that when writing in Wikipedia's voice or paraphrasing, we should avoid "collusion" and use "conspiracy" since the dossier never once uses the words collude or collusion. My concerns are for this article about the dossier itself, not necessarily for others, although it's something to keep in mind (there are likely a few instances which deserve a tweak). It's improper for us to claim that the dossier alleges a "collusion, when it only alleges a "conspiracy", one clearly describing highly illegal activity. Quotes:


 * "Further evidence of extensive conspiracy between campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US."
 * "Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared." (There are myriad very RS which quote this and comment on it, using names, so if anyone has a BLP hypersensitivity that transcends common sense, I'll be happy to add them here. Just don't delete without notification.)


 * In general and careless parlance the two words do tend to be synonyms, but in legal parlance they are not. Collusion is not illegal, but conspiracy is. The use of the word "collusion", while avoiding using "conspiracy", has been a deliberate Trump/GOP strategy, IOW pounding a straw man lie into the minds of the public. They started by saying there was no collusion. Now they have been forced to add the argument that "even if it occurred, it's not illegal". That's a nice trick, by starting with a straw man argument, and then, when caught, performing a bait-and-switch.


 * Even the ultra-conservative National Review, in an article worthy of WorldNetDaily-Obama-birtherism-conspiracy-theory style, accurately sums this up:


 * "[T]he FBI began receiving the dossier’s explosive reports shortly after Page’s Russia trip. Steele’s reports, based on anonymous Russian sources, alleged that (a) there was an explicit Trump-Russia conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election, (b) the conspiracy included Russian hacking of Democratic email accounts in which Trump campaign officials, including Page, were complicit, and (c) Page met with two top Kremlin operatives on the Moscow trip — operatives who discussed with him a quid pro quo arrangement to drop sanctions against Russia, floated the possibility of providing the Trump campaign with “kompromat” (compromising information) on Hillary Clinton, and warned that Trump better be careful because the Putin regime had a kompromat file on him, too."


 * That part of the article is actually VERY true to the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to your edit as of now. I am merely saying we should not start ignoring sources merely because they prefer the word “collusion” to “conspiracy”.  They mean the same thing.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing we alter quotes. We'll continue to use the words chosen by RS when we actually quote them. Is that fair enough? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We’ll see. My preference would be to uniformly use the term that reliable secondary sources mostly use (“collusion”) when we are not quoting anyone.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, we must not state in Wikipedia's voice that the dossier alleges "collusion" when it doesn't. Not one single instance. You're welcome to search it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you may be on the wrong track here, User:BullRangifer. If the dossier alleges conspiracy then it alleges collusion according to lots of dictionaries including the one I linked to above.  Moreover, reliable secondary sources explicitly say so.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that myriad RS use the word collusion, and if we are quoting them, we shouldn't change the word, but we should use the proper term when using Wikipedia's voice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we should keep with the wording of the document.Casprings (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When speaking carelessly, the two words are generally synonymous, but since this is also a matter of possible criminal activity, precision is important, and we should use the wording used by the dossier. We must not choose synonyms which have a different legal meaning.
 * Collusion may or may not be criminal, but conspiracy is exactly equal to criminal collusion. That is the difference. Conspiracy is always criminal, and the dossier speaks of a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership". The fact they tried to keep all activities secret, tried to cover them up after they became the subject of discussion in the media, and repeatedly lied about nearly every activity, is evidence of ill intent and guilty conscience. They knew they were committing crimes. -- BullRangifer (talk)
 * Again, you are using this talk page to accuse living persons including Trump of crimes based on no indictment or conviction, or corroboration. Please cut it out.  See WP:FORUM, WP:BLP, et cetera.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think BullRangifer is simply trying to explain you the meaning of allegations in the sources. Those are very serious allegations, and his edit was arguably reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We should go by what RS describe it as, which is collusion. Otherwise it is WP:OR. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, do you understand what we're talking about? Have you read the discussion? OR would be claiming, in Wikipedia's voice, that the dossier alleges collusion, when it doesn't. Otherwise, when quoting sources, we quote them accurately, even when they use the word collusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is fairly simple to follow. When using direct quotes, you quote them. If describing something, you describe it the way the vast majority of RS do. Which would be collusion, using other terms unless in a direct quote is OR. Understand now? PackMecEng (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When paraphrasing or describing the dossier, it’s perfectly acceptable to use words and phrases that are not in the dossier. Not only acceptable, but necessary.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's generally true. My concern is only for that one word. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For both of you, I only changed THREE instances. Is there a problem with any of them? If so, which one(s)? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see so far is the edit summary, which suggests that the word “collusion” would somehow be inappropriate. It’s not inappropriate, but rather is the preferred term in reliable secondary sources.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that many RS use the word collusion. Many also use the word conspiracy. This one, which we use, only uses the word conspiracy. It's a very informative article which we should use more. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are two problems. You recently tried to change "collusion" into "conspiracy" in the lead, but your edit was challenged. It appears that by reinstating a partial edit you have violated the "consensus required" page restriction. I suggest you self-revert. Moreover, the second instance of "collusion" in your edit is cited to ABC News. The source in fact says that the dossier "alleges the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians". The source does not use the word "conspiracy". I have no clear opinion whether the lead should include the word "collusion" or "conspiracy", but as you are the one who has suggested the change, it is you who must prove that your proposed change adheres to neutral point of view. Politrukki (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, good catch on the ABC source. I have self-reverted that one. The first edit you mention was very complex and large. There wasn't one single item, but a whole slew of items and references in that edit, and that was apparently too much and was reverted. It's true that some of it was apparently not included in the body yet, so there was some logic to that reversion, and I didn't try to restore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your partial self-revert but you still have not cited a talk page consensus for changing "collusion" to "conspiracy" in the lead or explained how that is NPOV. Politrukki (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As explained above, it was not a restoration of a previous edit, which was a large and complex one. They are two separate matters. They only have that one word in common, and the later change was of the word in three places, a very different type of edit. It was a bold edit which has been discussed. You pointed out where I had not been totally consistent with my own logic, and I self-reverted.
 * The one in the lead is unsourced, as we often do in the lead, and because it is essentially our summation, in Wikipedia's voice, of one of the key allegations made in the primary source, we shouldn't perform OR by making a false, unverifiable, claim. That part of my logic still stands unassailable; no one has yet produced a single instance of the words collude or collusion in the dossier, whereas the dossier describes criminal collusion, and uses the proper word for it, "conspiracy". NPOV has nothing to do with this, but verification does. Content must be verifiable, with no OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

??? Do you know what OR is? This is a red herring (and a troutable offense): "no one has yet produced a single instance of the words collude or collusion in the dossier". The ABC News source ('tis but one example) says: "The 35-page dossier, prepared by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, alleges the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians". Are you now disputing that this reliable source says the dossier alleges collusion, after you've just verified that the source uses the word "collusion"?

I think "collusion" and "conspiracy" are, in most cases, interchangeable, but if that's not true as you claim, we must get this right. If reliable sources describe XX as A, B, or C, we choose A, B, C, or D based on what is NPOV. Similarly the Honorable James Comey testified that the FBI is investigating "whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts", yet the media is predominantly using the word collusion. Your premise "[c]ollusion is not illegal, but conspiracy is" is false; some conspiracies are criminal, but all of them are not. Vast right-wing conspiracy is real, but it's not a criminal conspiracy. Politrukki (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're resurrecting this? Hmmm. Okay, I guess. Here's what you write above:
 * The ABC News source ('tis but one example) says: "The 35-page dossier, prepared by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, alleges the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians". Are you now disputing that this reliable source says the dossier alleges collusion, after you've just verified that the source uses the word "collusion"?
 * I have never disputed that RS use the word "collusion", including this source, and you know it, which makes me wonder why you're erecting a huge straw man attack on me after so many days. My only contention is that the dossier does not use it. The words "collude" and "collusion" do not appear in the dossier. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. It's easy to search.
 * The dossier only uses the word "conspiracy" (which, unlike collusion, is often a crime): "Further evidence of extensive conspiracy between campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US." This was sourced to a close associate of Trump.
 * To get this right, I have added properly sourced content, starting with a good RS in the body, and then a shorter quote in the lead. This is the best way to deal with this. No OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article describes why we should avoid the term "collusion" (but we will still use it here if the source uses it):
 * There's No Such Thing as 'Collusion'. We can't have an intelligent conversation about the Trump campaign's dealings with Russia when we're focused on a nonsense word.
 * Ron Fein has some interesting thoughts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece. We don't cite non-noteworthy opinion pieces. Especially when they don't mention the dossier. Politrukki (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I never proposed it for use as a source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain what exactly you meant by "we shouldn't perform OR by making a false, unverifiable, claim" and I'll consider retracting my so-called straw man attack. Summarising secondary sources and adopting their language is not original research. "Alleges collusion" is true and verifiable.
 * Your recent edit to the lead was pointy. Nobody asked you add a quotation to the lead. Other editors have explained to you that we are not married to the language a primary source uses. If you can adequately prove that the word "conspiracy" is NPOV, it should be easy reach consensus that the lead should say "conspiracy". If you can't or won't do that, this discussion is fruitless, and we should open an RFC. Politrukki (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For this type of situation, a primary source does not have to be NPOV, and neither does the secondary source which quotes it. There is no such policy here, and it would be a violation of NPOV to alter the quote or accurate description of what the dossier actually says. You're welcome to take this to the NPOV noticeboard. Accuracy and verifiability are far more important, and I don't understand why you'd want anything less accurate. When we have a choice between secondary sources which are loose with their language and secondary sources which are precise and accurate, we should choose the latter. That's what I did, and you object to that ONE quote? SMH. (You still haven't provided any evidence that the dossier uses the words "collude" or "collusion".) -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Does this fail verification?
Anythingyouwant, this edit added content I can't find in the source. Is there a better source, or am I missing something? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The source says, “The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation. The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe. This includes approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, two of the officials said.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not quite the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for rephrasing it for greater precision, VM, your adherence to policy (e.g. WP:PRESERVE) is admirable, and quite unlike those contemptible editors who go around blanking whatever conflicts with their POV. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is a PA and I ask you to strike it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Who are we to say a former CIA Director was lying and therefore delete his alleged lies?
I object to this edit. The edit summary says the statements by the ex-CIA Director were “clearly false”. Who says so?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He is speculating and wrong. Even RS can be wrong, and when we can prove they are wrong, then they are not reliable in that instance. For example, even an otherwise RS like The NY Times can be wrong, and editors must use common sense and not repeat false information. In that case we wouldn't use the Times. In this case, he's not lying, just engaging in speculation based on CIA practice, which was not the practice for Steele. The testimony that Steele did not pay his sources stands as the most accurate information we have. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know it was not the practice for Steele? Morrell says it should have been, correct?  Even if the practice was not followed, Morrell's statement that it should have been is relevant, no?  Why don't we provide Morrrell's statement, and also provide any contradictory statement by anyone else?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit doesn't speculate. SPECIFICO  talk  04:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, an RS speculates and we attribute that speculation, I can see no reason for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Morrell describes CIA practice, but Steele and Simpson describe a different practice, showing that Morrell is speculating and projecting CIA practice onto Steele, contrary to what Steele and Simpson have stated. The deleted content was deleted because it is unreliable and untrue, and since we know that, we should not use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These statements clearly conflict with the information that the sources were not paid:
 * "the "intermediaries paid the sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris."
 * "While another CIA officer commented that "the CIA also pays its sources," Morell responded: "But we know who the source is and we know how they got the information."
 * If we were documenting a mere difference of opinion, we might document the disagreement, but since they are clearly speculating, compared to very firm statements from the only people who have spoken on the matter, we must choose the reliable statements and leave out the speculation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Fusion GPS OP-ED titled "The Republicans’ Fake Investigations"
Fusion GPS founders just published an OPED in the New York Times. Some of their statements deserve to be in the article. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/republicans-investigation-fusion-gps.htmlCasprings (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They already are.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An excellent article. I have just used the source in two places, and content in one place. It's behind a paywall for some, so the Internet Archive can be used.
 * More can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an article. It's an opinion piece.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, by the founders of GPS. Their comments are noteworthy here.Casprings (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are indeed, but it's a primary source, not neutral, and should be handled accordingly.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was on Fusion GPS's website, we'd treat it as a primary source, but the fact The New York Times publishes it makes it a secondary source and perfectly fine to use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, WP:OR says "Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces". To treat this as if it's a straight news article would be really silly.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it would be attributed, and it is. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
 * "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
 * BullRangifer (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

More coverage of the story: BullRangifer (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * http://theweek.com/speedreads/746333/fusion-gps-founders-call-gop-lawmakers-release-transcripts-bombshell-testimony
 * https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/fusion-gps-steele-dossier-trump-russia-320236
 * http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/fusion-gps-nyt-op-ed/index.html
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/03/fusion-gps-execs-attack-fake-investigations-by-gop-aimed-at-punishing-it-for-trump-revelations/
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/research-firm-behind-steele-dossier-says-republicans-are-chasing-rabbits.html
 * Those are secondary sources. Much better to use them than the original opinion piece.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are good to use, but see above. Policy allows non-interpretive use of primary sources that are "reputably published", and The New York Times qualifies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but prefers third party sourcing. We could always use both.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you linked the wrong "The Week" story. Please correct that if you wish to include it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch, PackMecEng. I fixed it and added more. It's become a major story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/03/fusion-gps-execs-attack-fake-investigations-by-gop-aimed-at-punishing-it-for-trump-revelations/  SPECIFICO  talk  15:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Jason Chaffetz just went over the issues with Fusion GPS'es claims on Fox News. Chaffetz claims that there is nothing from preventing them from releasing to the public any information they wish to. Chaffetz also said Fusion GPS is still refusing to answer certain questions asked by the House Intel Committee. (And if I recall correctly it was Fusion GPS who wanted the meeting to be behind closed doors.) Chaffetz also said that Fusion GPS may have broken laws by paying foreigners. Zero Hedge also published an article with some important issues:"'For starters, Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson met with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya before and after the Trump Tower meeting, according to a Fox News report from November. '...hours before the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, Fusion co-founder and ex-Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson was with Veselnitskaya in a Manhattan federal courtroom, a confidential source told Fox News.' 'Court records reviewed by Fox News, email correspondence and published reports corroborate the pair’s presence together. The source told Fox News they also were together after the Trump Tower meeting.'" The article addresses other interesting issues, such as the Ohrs.Phmoreno (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. SPECIFICO  talk  18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Zero Hedge is a financial blog. It is not a reliable source for news reporting. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but this is a Talk page and this information is presented for analytical purposes.Phmoreno (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Since the Zero Hedge material cannot be included in the article for lack of Reliable Sourcing, mentioning it here can only serve two possible purposes: WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:FORUM. Neither is a permissible use of the Talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, we see your pattern. Maybe you should start the article Obstruction of justice by Trump administration. There you can document all this stuff you're seeing on Fox News, hearing from Trump's GOP lackeys, and finding on Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc, because that's what they're doing. They are pushing conspiracy theories to undermine the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), and you are buying these obstruction of justice efforts. It would be easy for Mueller to build a case against everyone who participates and convict them. A lot of GOP congressmen could end up in jail or be fined.

Granted, you'd have trouble creating such an article because most of the sources aren't reliable, but give it a try. That way you'll see if your belief system is based on solid reporting or not. We do have conspiracy theory articles documenting non-existent things like Chemtrails, Vertebral subluxation, etc, and those articles use some unreliable sources to document the basic claims. Your article would fit right in with them because it is a very notable subject, the basic criteria for article creation here -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * For now I will only address my recent source (primary). I trust Jason Chaffetz knows what he is talking about because he was Chairman of the House Oversight Committee until June 2017 and was involved with this particular investigation as, I am sure you are well aware.Phmoreno (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

When/why did Fusion hire Steele?
Our “History” section is confusing/confused about exactly when and why Fusion hired Orbis, and the Simpson-Fritsch NYT op-ed does not settle the question. They don’t say when they hired Orbis. They do say they gave Steele a single task, namely, researching why Trump kept trying to do business in Russia. That rationale for hiring him has now been added to our third paragraph. If that was the sole reason for hiring Orbis, the contract could have been set up in April, May, or June, 2016. But our fourth paragraph states that Fusion hired Orbis because of the DNC hack, and thus after public revelation of the hack (June 14, 2016). That information comes from a NYT article written in January 2017 when the dossier was published. I'm beginning to doubt that report, because Simpson and Fritsch say they were shocked when Steele started reporting about Russian attempts to interfere in the election. That sounds like they had not made any connection between Russia and the hacks, and did not make it part of Steele's portfolio. I am going to delete that bit from our fourth paragraph and do a bit of a rewrite, combining the third and fourth paragraphs. Even though the "DNC hack" rationale is sourced to the NYT, it may be that the reporter jumped to a conclusion with the benefit of hindsight.

More about timing: The NYT article says Steele delivered his first memo in June. It says reporters were chasing down rumors of the Steele investigation as early as July. It says Steele passed his information to both the FBI and to British intelligence in “late summer or early fall”. All of this is on the record. So is the fact that the FBI announced in July it was investigating the DNC hack (no mention of Russia at that time, and note that was before they were given the dossier). But the question of exactly when and why Fusion hired Orbis is unclear, with contradictory information out there. This should be a vital piece of information for this article. Anyone able to find a definitive statement on this? --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, good question. His first report was dated June 20, 2016. This is the only thing I could find, from a great article:
 * "...on a warm day last June, Christopher Steele,... received in his second-floor office at Orbis a transatlantic call from an old client." How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier
 * BullRangifer (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's helpful. It seems to say he was hired in June, rather than April or May. Should we add "June" to the article? BTW that timeline leaves open the possibility that the DNC hack was at least part of the reason for opening an investigation into Trump's Russia ties. Working against that, is Simpson and Fritsch saying they were shocked when Steele reported Russia's attempts to sway the election - implying it had never occurred to them. He sure worked fast, if he wasn't even approached about the gig until sometime in June and had his first report ready by June 20. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added it to the history section, and also the Timeline article. I suspect that their shock was more related to discovering much more than just hacking. Discovering that Trump was supposedly the victim of blackmail and cultivation going back at least eight years is pretty shocking. It's really hard to know. Information in later reports is even more shocking, and they are likely also referring to that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's a little hard to evaluate that article. Steele saying that he was hired to do "fairly general" research on the subject "Are there business ties in Russia?" - that certainly tallies with the rationale given by Simpson and Fritsch, and adds credibility to both their accounts. On the other hand, the article's suggestion that Simpson dug up some Democratic donors to support oppo research in June seems demonstrably false; evidence is that the Democratic funding began in April. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm....not sure what to do about that. I guess we just state it. Any doubts are our own and unusable OR. Maybe the Dems were funding the beginnings, including finding someone to continue the research started by The Washington Free Beacon. When they found Steele, the investigation literally jumped tracks by morphing from a reporter style job (Simpson) to an ex-MI6 intelligence style job, which is somewhat different. No doubt Simpson shared what he had done with Steele, and then Steele got to work on getting his Russian information, a whole different ballgame with very different sources. It sure would be interesting to see what Simpson had already found. Maybe someday it will become public. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What is transpiring now is why the veteran editors before us crafted WP:NOTNEWS. It's best to not write the review until after The fat lady sings. Atsme 📞📧 03:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These gender-shaming images do make me so uneasy. However in this case I think it underscores the nonsensicalism of saying the Feds have not verified the Dossier yet, when they appear to be verifying more of it every day. In the end we will know what to say.  SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The latest revelation is from Simpson's testimony, reported in a tertiary source. Steele was hired in "May or June 2016". I have added that information and the new source, and have removed the old source, which is below. It is still a very valuable source for this article, in case anyone wants to go through it and use it. It's an excellent source:

BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier

See also: Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia
At the top of the Contents section, a See also link exists pointing to Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia. In the beginnings of this article it might have seemed relevant, but I don't see its relevance now. Would someone please shed some light on this? Should we keep it or get rid of it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a link between Trump and Russia, but the contents is not the right place. If we include then it should go in the section see also. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BR, I agree with you that it doesn't relate to the dossier, and support removal from the article. Also, I'm of the mind that the first part of the Contents section is noncompliant with NPOV/BLP because (1) the 5 allegations are cherrypicked, (2) it's cited to a single source, and (3) it disparages a BLP via unsupported cherrypicked allegations; therefore, it's noncompliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE per the following: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. I'm not challenging the allegations themselves, I'm challenging the cherrypicked list of 5 from the dossier. I looked for other 3rd party RS to see if they also listed the same 5 allegations in a list as the cited source, but didn't find any. The paragraph needs to be rewritten for compliance.  Atsme 📞📧 20:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It could certainly be improved, with many more points and myriad very RS, so let's follow PRESERVE by improving, not deleting. The current content is very neutrally written, while the more developed content will be much stronger, with names. The current source is reliable, so there is no BLP violation. Cherrypicking by Wikipedia editors would be improper, but these points were chosen by the article's author, who cannot violate our rules against SYNTH and cherrypicking. I have other RS which choose different numbers of points to analyze. They may get added soon. In the end we should have original and exact quotes from the allegations from every report in the primary source, with abundant secondary sources backing up those parts and commenting on them. We have a long way to go. The secondary sources will determine which points we include. If secondary sources have commented on it, then we can include it, and currently there are abundant sources which comment on all sections and allegations in the dossier.
 * One way to immediately improve the section is to take what is already there and put like with like. We have the same subjects located in different parts of the section. They should be put together and arranged in the same order as in the dossier. That will also solve the sourcing concern, because there are several RS already used in that section. The idea of a list format is a good beginning. A number and date format should end up as the best format. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have already reached my 1rr limit today, so would one of you mind removing that link? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, ✅ &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  01:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

One way to improve the article would be to remove all the praise and peacock terms about Steele, especially considering how his own support for his dossier has changed, and the fact that criminal allegations have been raised against him by the Senate Intelligence Committee. A Washington Times article said he went from making statements of fact about Trump colluding with the Russians to saying it's “possible” in his court filings, and that his trusted Kremlin sources became "limited intelligence" in court. The most blatant unsupported allegations should be deleted, including the section "Hints of existence" which reads more like an attempt to build a case of collusion with nothing more than speculation based on allegations & anonymous sources. I imagine we'll be seeing a rather interesting turn of events in the very near future. <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 📞📧 07:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fear we will likely see that "rather interesting turn of events in the very near future", but if you stick to RS, the picture is quite different than the one you paint. You do realize what's happening? We're experiencing efforts to impede the investigation. These baseless accusations against Steele are used as distractions, and just like with Hillary and Benghazi, there is nothing there. We're seeing distractions of all types constantly emanating from the WH. When was the last time you saw an innocent person use the police to attack the whistleblower who provided the evidence of their crimes? It doesn't happen. Only guilty people act that way. This is a massive counterattack. If they get their way, the special counsel investigation will be sabotaged so effectively that the question of whether Trump's campaign colluded with Russia will not be cleared up.
 * All these actions are illegal, regardless of whether any crime has ever been committed by Trump or his campaign, and Mueller is documenting it all. Now will he be allowed to finish his work? Nixon went down because of obstruction of justice. He even fired the special counsel. Will Trump do it too? If he does, will he survive the protests, or be forced to seek asylum at the Russian embassy? We're watching history unfold.
 * BTW, the Washington Times is not a RS like the Washington Post. That article is in relation to the libel lawsuit and is from December. It's not current. You may want to balance that article's remarks with this article from Newsweek around that time. You'll see how the Times is very slanted against investigating the allegations. What are they afraid of? -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I haven't seen any reporting that Steele has changed or retracted his support for the dossier. (The Washington Times, aka the Moonie Times, is a notoriously unreliable source.) In the recently-released transcript of Glenn Simpson's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson reasserted (under oath) his confidence in the dossier. As for "criminal allegations have been raised", that is not true. The two Republicans made a referral to the FBI, but they added in a statement that they weren't suggesting that any crime had been committed - only that certain actions should be looked into. {"The request does not assess the validity of the Steele dossier, nor does it constitute a criminal allegation. 'The referral is for further investigation only,. according to the statement."CNN) --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Melanie, do you know of any center-right publication that is considered "reliable"? Please list them. Also, you might want to read Vox since most here consider it a RS. IMO, their breakdown comes closer to getting it right than most center-left RS that have been cited. Information that disproves a great deal of the allegations and the way they've been presented in this article are being published daily. I wouldn't be surprised if we end-up having to change most of it, and boy will that be a job considering all the unfounded allegations that have not/and probably will not be verified. WP should not be used to promote any political agenda, and I would think that includes publishing unverifiable political rhetoric and allegations. I guess the big question is how much egg we want on the face of our encyclopedia. <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 📞📧 15:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutral language please
I disagree with this edit as well as the edit summary. The edit summary opines that Steele is not guilty of anything, and the edit opines about what his motives were. How about saying instead that he authored the dossier? We may have to go to dispute resolution if people don’t attempt to show a little bit of neutrality here.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ???? You really need to AGF. What I added very closely follows the sources: "one of those who sought to expose Russian meddling in the election"
 * The NYT source says "the meddling--against one of the people who sought to expose it", and the WaPo source says: "one who reported on these matters to law enforcement in the first place".
 * There is nothing "ostensibly" about it. There is no question about what he actually did, and his motives are irrelevant. All sources (except ultra right-wing, like Fox News and Breitbart) make it clear what his actions and "motives" (your word) are. I said nothing about his motives and only documented what our sources say.
 * Your NPOV violating addition of "ostensibly" is a
 * weasel word intended to
 * push your POV doubts, IOW, a
 * BLP violation to poison the well against Steele.
 * Now which one of us really deserves to end up at dispute resolution? If you still think I am the one, then go for it. If you do that, your competence will be questioned, because you are getting information from unreliable sources like Fox and Breitbart. Anyone who gets (and believes) information from them is fundamentally unfit to edit political subjects here. Only use them for critical research, never for accuracy.
 * It's bad enough that we sadly must document that Congressmen are "carrying water for Trump" (and Putin), without also having to defend Wikipedia from editors who do the same. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that stuff in the cited NYT source, I hadn't noticed it. I still think inserting the word "ostensibly" would be an improvement, though, and I still think your edit summary showed bias.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There's nothing about motives in that edit Anythingyouwant. Please stop it with the strawmen.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What Steele was seeking to do is a matter of great dispute.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As soon as you start talking about motives, you're into OR territory and not following Wikipedia's approach. We base our content on sources, and I am just following the sources. If they are talking about motives, so be it. I don't care. My summary follows the sources very closely, without any OR or SYNTH violations.
 * I see that the wording has been changed, so asking you to revert your POV addition is moot now, but in the future, AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Response > Pushback
Several articles related to the Russia interference and investigation will end up needing "Pushback" sections to deal with the enlarging attempts to impede the investigation (otherwise known as obstruction of justice). As Rachel Maddow said last night (the whole show was labeled "Pushback"), we should not be surprised by the pushback, but by the success it is getting. That's truly scary. Victors write the history, but usually "truth will out". For the short term, that may not be the case.

There is a very specific type of response occurring, and it needs its own section. Therefore I propose we use Pushback, instead of the generic Response. We could then have an "Other responses" section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Beware of echo chambers. While Rachel Maddow may be enlightening, there are other points of view.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are. That's why I monitor nearly all major RS. I read, scan, and post up to 100 per day on FB and Twitter, sometimes more. My readers are very well informed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To me the term "Pushback" for a section title seems dramatic and non-neutral for an encyclopedia article. It seems appropriate for commercial news enterprises but not for Wikipedia. Imho. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, Steve Quinn, do you have a more neutral term to describe the specific type of response coming from those defending Trump against allegations of collusion with Russia?
 * Responses from the media and public are often of a different type, and there should be some type of separation. That's all I'm seeking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for asking. Well, some synonyms for "pushback" are "rebuff", "oppose", "deny", "dismiss", "spurn", "repudiate" and "resist" (see thesaurus query here). Some of these might not be much better than "pushback". Anyway, it looks as though it would have to a form of these words, or even make up a phrase with one of these words. In any case, if there is consensus for "pushback" then that will be used. I was merely expressing my view. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. We need a descriptive term. How about "Responses from defenders of Trump"? The other could be "Other responses". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For precision, the first one might be good. Maybe change it to "Responses from Trump defenders". But, are they defending Trump or simply trying to undermine the Obstruction of Justice investigation. I know it equates to the same thing as a point of view, but is it NPOV to have this as a section title? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I like your version better ("Responses from Trump defenders"). The equivalence between "defenders" and "obstructors of justice" is pretty much 100% here. I don't see any other option
 * We may not be able to avoid some semblance of POV, but an accurate description of a POV is not the POV we're worried about, because it's merely an NPOV "description of the POV". I'm not sure if that's clear, but I hope you get my drift.
 * Anyone is welcome to suggest something. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Obstructors of justice is a easy non-starter for NPOV and a host of other reasons. Response from Trump defenders is a little better, but the opposion is not solely for the defense of Trump. PackMecEng (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Criminal referral of Steele has an INSANE amount of WP:WEIGHT
This needs to be one are two sentences. This paragraph is insane. There is two main points here. 1. It was sent. 2. It was over his contacts to reporters. Thats it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/us/politics/christopher-steele-dossier-judiciary-committee.html?_r=0 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to sign your posts. Thank you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I tidied that section up a little but I agree the amount of information is UNDUE for this article. I suggest deleting the entire second paragraph, which details reactions by third parties. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I removed the separate section heading as overkill. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay by me. A separate subheading would be apt if the subsection remains as long as it is.  Note that an aide said other Senators weren’t consulted rather than the Senators saying so themselves.   Nice vacation?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it since I'd rather not go behind the paywalls. Yes, nice vacation, also cold! --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing content from this area. It does seem bloated. As far as I am concerned, do whatever you think is best. After all, you are an Admin with access to secret Wikipedia knowledge that guides you (but the rest of us don't have) |:>) Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ouch. You mean you know about the WP:CABAL? 0;-D Anyhow I see several people agreeing to remove that paragraph and no-one disagreeing so I will remove it, pending further discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Bank turns over disputed Fusion GPS records to Congress
This may be too much detail for a developing story, but you decide: Bank turns over disputed Fusion GPS records to Congress, CNN Politics. Zero Hedge ran a more detailed story with a timeline of events.Phmoreno (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's worth a mention at the Fusion GPS article. This is a direct result of the judge's order. Not sourced to Zero Hedge though, which we keep trying to tell you is not a reliable source. But CNN is. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I know I saw that judge's decision somewhere, but it's not at the Fusion article. Where did it go? --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2018
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus leans against moving to "Steele dossier" but is sufficient for moving to "Trump–Russia dossier". bd2412 T 18:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump–Russia dossier → Steele dossier – Most news organizations don't actually call this paper the "Donald-Trump Russia" dossier and it's too precise to do anything. Steele dossier by comparison is commonly used and has more search results. WP:COMMONNAME Swordman97  talk to me  03:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: This is the common name and inherently more specific. Though the naming convention was up in the air when it was first revealed in January of last year, "Steele dossier" has become the dominant name used by reliable sources. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 04:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:Common name.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, as long as the previous names remain as redirects. As DarthBotto points out, this is the name that sources seem to have eventually settled on. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC) changing my mind in favor of Russia-Trump dossier as suggested below. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I suspect that's a typo and you meant Trump-Russia..., rather than Russia-Trump dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I meant Trump-Russia dossier. Or Trump–Russia dossier if the MOS literalists insist. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, retain current name, add Steele Dossier as a redirect to current page. Common name (in this case, I don't think it's truly THE common name, just one of them) shouldn't necessarily over-ride a more accurate one. Example, the common-name of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service is the "Wood Royal Commission" but Wood Royal Commission is only a redirect. In this case, the subject (Trump & Russia) should be used rather than the author (Steele). Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Other stuff exists is not a good enough argument. If their is something wrong with that page then go and fix it there, but don't ruin this one to make it consistent with a mistake. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:36, January 10, 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Saying "WP:Other stuff exists is not a good enough argument" is itself not a good argument because WP isn't a codified set of arbitrary unchanging laws that are automatically applied 100% of the time, it is a subjective consensus based around general guidelines. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA suggest a good article title has 5 characteristics, Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. Using "Donald Trump–Russia dossier" fits perfectly well for all 5 and the only one I could see a real improvement would be in Conciseness only if it were changed to Trump-Russia dossier. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Steele dossier already exists as a redirect to this page, so to a certain extent it doesn't matter which name we use as the actual title - they both get people to this article. In fact, any of these search terms lead people to this article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per WP:PRECISION the title is supposed to refer to the topic of the article, which is the dossier, and the topic of the dossier is Trump and Russia, not Steele. Twitter search and Google trends do not confirm that one name has become dominant, e.g. original Buzzfeed editor in NYT Op-ed today refers to it as "Trump-Russia dossier, as does Natasha Bertrand today in BI;" although "Steele dossier" is used by some sources it may also be called the "Trump dossier," the "Russia dossier," the "Fusion GPS Trump dossier," or just "the dossier." Rationaledit (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most popular sources use variations of the current title to refer to the dossier - the proposed revised name seems to be not as popular. Aurorion (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the search results for "Donald Trump–Russia" dossier - only about 3 or 4 sources in the first few pages actually refer to it like that. Swordman97  talk to me  21:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION because there are several "Donald Trump–Russia" dossiers out there. -- Netoholic @ 10:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What are these other dossiers? Should we disambiguate? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The main one that comes to mind. -- Netoholic @ 13:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as per Netoholic's rationale above Manelolo (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support author name is preferred Phmoreno (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. More people would recognize the current title because they know that the dossier is about Mr. Trump's alleged entanglements with Russia. Fewer members of the public know that it was written by Christopher Steele. Mksword (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Postscript: Please see the section below, "Count of the types of wording recent reliable sources use to refer to the dossier", concerning how recent RS refer to the dossier. Mksword (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Inspired by Slatersteven, I googled just now using the five quoted search strings shown in the below table and got the numbers of hits shown.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Search string ! Number of hits
 * "Trump dossier"
 * align="right"| 1,460,000
 * "Russia dossier"
 * align="right"| 1,020,000
 * "Trump-Russia dossier"
 * align="right"| 456,000
 * "Steele dossier"
 * align="right"| 431,000
 * "Donald Trump–Russia dossier"
 * align="right"| 283,000
 * }
 * Clearly, the title of this article should include both "Trump" and "Russia". That's why I am voting to oppose the proposed name change to "Steele dossier". Mksword (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Donald Trump–Russia dossier"
 * align="right"| 283,000
 * }
 * Clearly, the title of this article should include both "Trump" and "Russia". That's why I am voting to oppose the proposed name change to "Steele dossier". Mksword (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the title of this article should include both "Trump" and "Russia". That's why I am voting to oppose the proposed name change to "Steele dossier". Mksword (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – "Steele dosser" has become the preferred way to refer to this doument in recent RS. Qualifies as the common name by now. — JFG talk 02:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think "Steele dossier" is the commmon name, though it could be a redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Strong Support  - it is/has been predominantly known as the Steele dossier, as it was when I first suggested the name change back on November 10, 2017. Vox explains it in this article. It could even be titled the Steele dossier (Trump) because there may be some spin-offs originating from the title Steele dossier that may need a dab page - just a thought. <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 📞📧 16:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Trump dossier" 1,990,900 results - <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 📞📧 23:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Russia dossier" 766,000 results "Steele dossier " 433,000 results "Donald Trump–Russia dossier" 280,000 results "Donald Trump dossier" 990,000 results

So OpposeSlatersteven (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose support Russia Dossier as common name.Casprings (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Since all the oppose votes support Trump–Russia Dossier, I went ahead and moved it. Figured we might as well avoid another discussion. That said, I forgot to add – and instead added -. For some reason, it won't let me fix it. Sorry. Casprings (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, is this dash business something you can fix? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like the Emir fixed it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if got confused by this, as they seemed to be requesting a reversal with this . --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's true that the previous article title - Donald Trump-Russia dossier - had a hyphen rather than a dash. There may be some MOS or technical reason for using a simple hyphen. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The guidelines at WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS don't seem to actually forbid the dash, as long as there is a redirect using the hyphen - but IMO there's no real reason why we should require a dash here. Maybe a revert to the hyphen (which the previous article used) is called for. If this is something anyone feels strongly about, you need to go to that "requested moves/technical" page and move the request from "uncontroversial" to "contested". --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -As long as all of the different ways of searching this article are redirected to it, what does it matter what the name is? The focus should be on the redirects not the name/renaming.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A few years from now, who among the general public is going to remember the person who compiled the dossier?  But most people who were around and at least semi-conscious in 2017/2018 will instantly know what is meant by Trump-Russia dossier.  I looked at recent RS and found Trump-Russia dossier with and without hyphen Newsweek, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, just to name a few.   In the body of the articles, the term is often abbreviated to dossier or Russia dossier which probably accounts for the numerous search hits. As for the proposed new title, here’s a New Yorker article that showed up in the search results for "Steele dossier". Steele dossier is mentioned twice in the body of the article, Russia dossier twice (in the caption of the photograph and in the body), dossier by itself nine times.  The term Trump-Russia dossier is used only once, but that’s in the headline. </b>
 * I would support shortening the title to Trump-Russia dossier because it seems to be the most frequent term used in headlines and because the dossier is not just about Trump; it’s also about various members of his campaign staff and cabinet and other associates (Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, DT Jr., etc. Anything shorter (e.g., Trump dossier, Russia dossier) is too unspecific. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've changed my mind about this. Also, we editors are much more aware of Steele than our general public readers. The search statistics are compelling. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Space4Time3Continuum2x and SPECIFICO. I do think shortening to Trump-Russia dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose but favor shortening to Trump–Russia dossier - per above. Neutralitytalk 19:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- per the numbers above. In addition, the "Trump–Russia dossier" is the more descriptive one; "Steele dossier" should be a redirect to this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment last move discussion. Less identifiable to people who don't know deeply about the dossier. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above discussion and my comments in the previous two RMs on this subject. I also oppose the removal of Donald, because the title is clearer as it currently is. The move to remove "Donald" should not have gone ahead until the conclusion of the RM, when a closer would have assessed whether there's consensus for that. Moving an article in the middle of an RM just creates confusion. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Summary to date: This has been a well-attended RM discussion. By my count, to this point 22 people have offered an opinion. Seven people have favored the move to Steele dossier. Nine people opposed the move to Steele dossier and either explicitly or by implication favored retaining the current title of Donald Trump–Russia dossier. An additional six opposed the move to Steele dossier and favored a move to Trump–Russia dossier. Thus, to this point (discussion open for five days and still active) there are seven people favoring the move to Steele dossier and fifteen opposing it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2018 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Count of the types of wording recent reliable sources use to refer to the dossier
There are nine footnotes in the article that cite sources dated in year 2018. Thus, they are the most recent RS concerning the dossier that this article knows of. (To make sure we agree about the footnote numbers, I used the article as it existed just prior to this writing -- at 23:26, 10 January 2018. The URL for that edition of the article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier&oldid=819785106).

Here are those nine footnotes, each followed by a quoted string showing the words that the article uses to refer to the dossier:

<tt>#</tt>31: Johnson, Kevin; Kelly, Erin (January 9, 2018). "Dossier author was told FBI had a source inside Trump Organization". USA TODAY. "a controversial dossier alleging coordination between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Kremlin"

<tt>#</tt>32: Simpson, Glenn R.; Fritsch, Peter (January 2, 2018). "Opinion". The New York Times. "Steele dossier"

<tt>#</tt>38: Flegenheimer, Matt (January 9, 2018). "Fusion GPS Founder Hauled From the Shadows for the Russia Election Investigation". The New York Times. "an explosive dossier — produced at his firm, Fusion GPS, with a former British spy, Christopher Steele — outlining possible connections between the president, his associates and Russian officials."

<tt>#</tt>118: Stanglin, Doug (January 5, 2018). "GOP senators recommend criminal probe of 'Steele dossier' author". USA TODAY. Retrieved January 7, 2018. "Steele dossier"

<tt>#</tt>120: Barrett, Devlin; Hamburger, Tom (January 5, 2018). "Senior Republican refers Trump dossier author for possible charges". The Washington Post. "Trump-Russia dossier"

<tt>#</tt>121: Tau, Byron (2018-01-05). "Senators Ask Justice Department to Open Criminal Probe Into Trump Dossier Author". Wall Street Journal. "Trump Dossier"

<tt>#</tt>122: "Senators urge Trump dossier author probe". BBC News. January 5, 2018. "Trump dossier"

<tt>#</tt>125: Barrett, Devlin; Hamburger, Tom (2018-01-09). "Fusion GPS founder told Senate investigators the FBI had a whistleblower in Trump's network". Washington Post. "Trump dossier"

<tt>#</tt>126: "Trump Lawyer Cohen Sues Buzzfeed Over Claims in Russia Dossier". Bloomberg.com. 2018-01-10. "Russia Dossier"

SUMMARY: Of the nine footnotes,
 * Two of them (#32 and #118) say "Steele dossier".
 * Six of them (#s 31, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126) say "Trump", "Russia", "Kremlin", or some combination thereof.
 * One of them (#38) says all of those things together: "Steele", "the president", and "Russian officials".

Mksword (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Uhm....yep. <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 📞📧 15:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, I am voting to oppose the proposal to rename the article to "Steele dossier". All of the actual data I have seen shows that "Steele dossier" is not as well known as appellations that include "Trump" and "Russia". Mksword (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Now the title is back to "Donald Trump-Russia dossier"
Anthony Appleyard, why did that happen? The only change should have been a standard hyphen, not restoring "Donald". It should be "Trump-Russia dossier". -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with "Trump-Russia dossier" (using a standard hyphen) for the title of this article. IMO, that would be the ideal title for this article. Mksword (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. When not absolutely necessary to do otherwise, we should use titles and content using symbols on an ordinary keyboard. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Trump-Russia dossier Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You tried. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article to its long-term stable title of Donald Trump–Russia dossier. Until the RM above is done, and a closer has assessed the consensus, it should not be moved anywhere because that just confuses the discussion. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll AGF in your intentions, but a local consensus has been overridden. This forces us to have a new RfC. Will someone please start it? I don't have the time right now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Amakuru, I can see that this reversal of a local consensus will leave no doubt in the end (assuming there really was someone in doubt who contacted you), but sometimes local common sense and IAR works better than bureaucratic processes. This reminds me of a situation where we have a serial NOTHERE vandal running around because it's too much of a nuisance to use the notice boards. I called an admin to just look at their contribution history which shows massive vandalism, including deletion of all content in articles, but rather than just blocking on the spot when they had just done it, the admin told me to use a noticeboard. Process wonks are killing this place. Sometimes common sense and IAR do have a place, and admins shouldn't be afraid to use it, like Anthony Appleyard did above. BTW, that vandal is still not blocked, but right now is quiet. When will they strike again? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * what local consensus are you talking about? If you mean the !votes in the requested move discussion above, the consensus there is not assessed until the discussion is closed and archived, and that includes consensus for any kind of move, not just the one mentioned in the request header. The assessment is usually made by an uninvolved experienced editor, who can examine it impartially and decide whether there really is justification to move. They will certainly consider the possibility of removing "Donald" at the time of closure. It may seem like needless bureaucracy to you, but I've experienced enough discussions to know that having an impartial formal process, where a set of loose "rules" are followed, results in better acceptance and more stability going forward.
 * Regarding the dash, I'm going to have to respectfully point you to the manual of style at MOS:DASH. That tells us that given this is a conjunction of two concepts, we should use an en-dash rather than a hyphen. The fact that it's not possible to type the – on a keyboard does not mean that we don't use it, and it's not really a problem because there will always be a *redirect* to allow users to type the same name with a hyphen if they prefer. See Uganda–Tanzania War, Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area articles, etc. for lots more examples. Thanks! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Amakuru, I'm content to follow through with procedure. Let's get this over with quickly and then !vote on "Trump–Russia dossier". BTW, I can see your point that we need to use en-dash. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone editing this page that thinks you shouldn't move the page to Trump-Russia dossier over the current name? I think, besides for one editor, the en-dash argument is pretty settled. Yes, there is still a discussion to be had over rather we should ultimately move the page to Steele dossier. That looks likely to fail, but absolutely that should run its course. That said, there is no need to have another move discussion. Just move the page and use common sense.Casprings (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The dash issue is pretty settled? What do you mean? Am I the one editor who you think is dissenting? I have explained above why the article has to be titled with an en-dash rather than a hyphen. Unlike the inclusion or non-inclusion of "Donald", the punctuation question is not a matter we can sit down and debate over a cup of tea, with valid opinions on both sides, it's a simple matter of English punctuation rules, and in the particular the style of English that we use here at Wikipedia, which is detailed at great length in WP:MOS. "Trump–Russia dossier" is correct, and "Trump-Russia dossier" is wrong, it's a black and white issue.
 * And no, we will not use common sense and move the page, unless the closer decides it that way, or suggests a fresh RM. You'll note that the closer of the last RM, here, specifically said No prejudice against a future discussion on one of the other possible titles. The fact that we're back two months later, but with a repeat of the discussion that gained no consensus in November, suggests we haven't really moved on yet, and maybe a fresh RM will result. We shall see. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the dash issue -- [gleefully, I used two hyphens there] Thank you, Amakuru, for showing us that MOS:DASH requires that we use an en dash rather than a hyphen. Personally, I disagree with that MOS:PUNCT stipulation but I will grit my teeth and tolerate it when I'm forced to, as at this time. Mksword (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for understanding! I can see why this might be a bit pedantic, I was like that myself initially, but after years of seeing people fussing about which symbols to use I've ended up doing it myself smiley.png &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * See Trump and trump :: the word "trump" has several meanings, and being the first word in the title it would have an capital regardless, and is unusual as a man's surname; adding his forename makes it clearer that it refers to a man and not to a metaphorical use of "trump card", or to "trumping an accusation", or etc. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2018
Donald Trump–Russia dossier → Trump–Russia dossier – Per discussion here, this is a combo of the two most WP:COMMONNAME. Per google search results: Starting this discussion because there seems to be an emerging consensus in the previous move discussion on Steele dossier. Casprings (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Procedural question: I don't see how we can have two different move discussions, proposing two different titles, running at the same time. That's simple chaos. What if we close both the above one and this one as aborted/no result, and prepare an RfC that will deal with both proposed titles? (That is, Steele dossier and Trump-Russia dossier.) But for now I would suggest we not respond to this proposal, but work toward a unified move discussion that will settle the question. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And when we do set up a unified RM discussion, please give unique titles to "Survey" and "Discussion" so that we don't get sent to the above discussions instead. IMO a talk page with multiple RMs and RFCs should always have individual, unique titles for those sections. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Better yet, let's just wait for the earlier discussion to close before opening this one. One thing at a time is much cleaner, and there's no hurry. That earlier discussion has had 22 participants to date and is still ongoing; it deserves a proper close. Casprings, I would request you to close this RM for now, and repost it after the previous discussion has been closed by someone uninvolved per the usual process. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't seem the harm in going ahead and starting a discussion to formalize what looks likely to be the consensus. That said, if other editors agree this should be closed, I will absolutely close it.Casprings (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not saying that we should close this, but combining the two allegedly most popular names into one name to make our own is synthesis. Per you Google search results we should use the "Trump dossier" as the article title and have the others as redirects. Google search results are not a valid way to determine common name as it includes non-RSs. Finally this could be a problem from, but my search numbers differ from yours. If you do close this and then later restart then keep these in mind. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Casprings, I suggest you hat this for now, then unhat it when the previous RM is closed. Otherwise, when the time comes, I'm a "support"er. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Could somebody now close the above "Requested move 10 January 2018" ?
Four sections above this one is a section entitled "Requested move 10 January 2018". Could somebody please take whatever actions are needed to formally close that discussion? (be sure to see the closing instructions). Mksword (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Should Information about the #ReleaseTheMemo push be included here?
Cf. e.g. Release the Memo: What's the Conspiracy Behind the Right-Wing Meme? and What's really behind the right's #releasethememo push -- about the HPSCI memo on alleged FISA abuse by FBI and DoJ officials. 93.224.96.156 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No I am not sure it should be.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And I am not sure what to make out of this: User_talk:93.224.96.156. 93.224.96.156 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked should it be included and I answered. What do you not understand about that?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Quotation: >>The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. ... Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks.<<
 * How to know when simply adding information found in articles on the net, if an edit is deemed to "not adhere"? Sounds a bit like "Don't touch!" 93.224.96.156 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is not the place to discus this warning, you should ask the editor who places it. Nor does it have anything to do with my replies.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I did not want to discuss it, I just answered your question and when I referenced the warning in the first place it was just to inform about letting it go. 93.224.96.156 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those sources would be better used on an article like Links between Trump associates and Russian officials than here. It is not within the scope of this article, not really.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No. The links you list, calling it a "meme" and a "conspiracy theory", are partisan sources so they are not neutral. A Google search does find some neutral reporting, which says the supposed clamor to release it is being pushed by Russian trolls. If the memo gets released, then we can and probably should cover it. Not just the calls to release it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am dismayed by the refusal to allow important information in this article based on reasons that don't seem to apply equally to the actual premise on which this article was created. The major claims of Trump collusion/conspiracy in the dossier remain unsubstantiated and at this point in time, are considered nothing more than conspiracy theories, which begs the question, when did WP start promoting conspiracy theories? While some news organizations are considered to be RS, I highly recommend a review of WP:NEWSORG, especially when "conspiracy theories" are involved. Granted, both sides of the political isle are pushing their own biased theory of alleged conspiracy but this WP article reflects UNDUE WEIGHT with emphasis on a one-sided conspiracy theory rather than the factual side; the latter being that the major claims of collusion/conspiracy between Trump and Russia remain unsubstantiated.
 * A Newsweek article summarized Simpson's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the facts that should reflect due weight in our WP article (and repeated in other RS) is the bold text (my emphasis): "Russia embarked on a “purge” of suspected spies after the leak of the dossier that provided unsubstantiated claims of potential ties between President Donald Trump and the Russian government, Some of the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in our article are cited to sources that date back to 2016-2017 breaking news, and should be updated with the factual information that has since been brought to light by Congressional hearings, most of which has been published in RS. For example, an article dated January 10, 2018 by the BBC provides information about the Simpson hearing using the terms "unsubstantiated claims" and "conspiracy theories".
 * Following are a few examples from that article:
 * "No evidence has emerged that Mr Trump was blackmailed by the Kremlin.", and "The dossier contained an unsubstantiated claim that Mr Trump was once filmed with prostitutes at a hotel in the Russian capital."
 * "However, a source told CNN the attorney's remark did not refer to any specific death, but instead alluded to a string of unsolved fatalities of Russians after the 2016 election that have preoccupied conspiracy theorists." Yes, conspiracy theorists, and they're coming from both sides of the political isle and being published by MSM. In that same article, the BBC stated with reference to other news organizations that refused to publish the dossier:
 * "However, most decided not to report on the material because its sometimes lewd content could not be verified.", and that "Mr Browder, a Kremlin critic who was once the subject of damaging allegations by Fusion GPS, told the New York Times about Mr Simpson: "He's a professional smear campaigner and liar for money."
 * What I find most disconcerting is that our encyclopedia is publishing these unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, and worse, it's being done in a way that I and other editors believe is noncompliant with NPOV. I have not seen anything quite like it during my time on encyclopedia. <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 📞📧 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What has this to do with people asking for a memo to be released whose contents we are unaware of bar a few rumors?Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)